Court Opinion

ID: 9741250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:21.924289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.103266
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). I write separately to express my disagreement with the prospective rule the majority sets forth directing the manner in which the trial courts are to convey the appeal right information to convicted defendants represented by counsel at the time of sentencing. As I understand the requirements of the majority’s rule, the circuit court, on the record, will give the defendant two copies of the SM-33 instruction form; will direct the attorney to “discuss the subject of appeal with the defendant and [explain] the appellate procedure and requirements to the defendant;” will direct the attorney to have the instruction form signed and dated by the defendant and the attorney; will direct that the executed instruction form *563be filed with the court; and will explain to both defendant and counsel that if the defendant has any questions regarding the instruction, the defendant and his counsel shall present them to the circuit court and the circuit court shall answer them. Supra, pp. 561, 562.
This court has said previously that the trial judge should inform the defendant of “the right to appeal or seek other postconviction relief, the time limits on seeking the relief and, if indigent, the right to publicly compensated counsel in those proceedings,” and should inform the trial counsel of his or her obligation to continue representation during the post conviction stage of the proceedings. Sec. 809.30(1) (b), Stats. 1979-80; Peterson v. State, 54 Wis.2d 370, 195 N.W.2d 837 (1972); Whitmore v. State, 56 Wis.2d 706, 203 N.W.2d 56 (1973); Thiesen v. State, 86 Wis.2d 562, 273 N.W.2d 314 (1979). Wis. J I — Criminal SM-33 was drafted to aid the j udge in complying with this obligation.
In view of the critical nature of the appeal right to a defendant and in light of the high potential for misunderstanding in advising a defendant of appeal rights at sentencing, I favor requiring the circuit judge to read, on the record, the relevant parts of Wis. J I — Criminal SM-33 (or its equivalent) to the defendant and to the attorney and to state, on the record, that the judge is at that time furnishing to the defendant and the attorney a copy of the parts of SM-33 which the judge has read.
If the purposes of the prospective rule are to save the trial court’s time and give the defendant a better opportunity to understand appeal rights, I do not think the rule will accomplish these ends. I do not think the defense counsel is better able than the trial court to communicate appellate rights to the defendant who, as the majority notes, may be distraught.
I fear that a number of practical problems are likely to result from the majority’s procedure. What does the *564court expect the attorney to tell the defendant in order for the attorney to certify that he or she has discussed the subject of appeal with the defendant and has explained the appellate procedure and requirements to the defendant? How long does the attorney have to wait before he or she starts to discuss the subject of appeal with the distraught defendant? Is there a quiet place available in the courthouse for the attorney and defendant to talk? What if the attorney has another obligation to meet and cannot immediately after sentencing spend the ten minutes, half-hour, or one hour or more it might take to discuss with the defendant the subject of appeal and appellate procedure and requirements and get his signature? What happens if the judge is in the midst of another case or has left for the day and the defendant has a question? What if the defendant refuses to sign the form ? Who has the responsibility of filing the copy with the court? Can the signed form be made part of the record if it is not “filed in open court” ? How is the executed copy filed with the court? How is it filed in open court? By giving it to the judge, to the court reporter, the bailiff or clerk of circuit court? What if the signed copy is not filed at all ?
The most serious problem I see with the majority’s procedure is that it is likely to engender misunderstanding as to whether the postsentencing discussion between the attorney and the defendant fulfills the attorney’s duty to the defendant which SM-33 sets forth as follows :
“You and your attorney should discuss these remedies. Your attorney has the duty to continue to represent you until a decision is made to accept the judgment or to appeal to the court of appeals or to file motions. Your attorney has the duty to continue to represent you in presenting motions to this trial court.
“If you decide to appeal to the court of appeals, your attorney has the duty to prepare and file your notice of appeal.
*565“If your present attorney cannot continue to represent you on the appeal and if you are indigent, you yourself may write to the State Public Defender . . . .”
I do not believe the majority opinion intended that the postsentencing discussion conference between the defendant and attorney fulfill the attorney’s responsibilities set forth in SM-33.