Opinion ID: 1724484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of counsel prior to trial.

Text: Rafferty claims that after his arrest he was held in custody by the Madison police department without the opportunity to consult or advise with counsel for over forty hours. We have previously cautioned against such police conduct and have pointed out that: Such detention casts a doubt upon the validity of police methods of crime detection, constitutes an abuse  to the arrested individual and may raise a question of the voluntariness of the acts performed and the statements made by the accused during that period of time. Pulaski v. State (1964), 23 Wis. (2d) 138, 145, 126 N. W. (2d) 625. However, this alleged abuse of the criminal process is raised for the first time in the brief and oral argument of counsel. There is nothing of record that would properly bring this contention before us. As we have previously said, our review of a judgment on writ of error is necessarily limited to the correction of errors that appear on the face of the record. Sparkman v. State (1965), 27 Wis. (2d) 92, 96, 133 N. W. (2d) 776; Babbitt v. State (1964), 23 Wis. (2d) 446, 450, 127 N. W. (2d) 405. In Sparkman, supra, we held that the contention that the defendant appeared at the preliminary hearing in manacles could not be considered by this court on writ of error when the record is silent in that regard. We point out, however, that even though the record did show an unlawful detention, there has been no claim made that there was causal connection between the detention and the subsequent plea. Additionally, Some showing must be made why the preservation of the constitutional issues were not waived by his subsequent plea of guilty. Pulaski, supra, page 146. Not having raised this alleged error on the record below by a motion to withdraw the plea, this matter is not before us.