Court Opinion

ID: 9661037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:27:13.955617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:23.988604
License: Public Domain

Hallows, C. J.
(dissenting). I must dissent from the conclusion of the majority that the accused pleaded guilty with full knowledge of all possible penalties. When first arraigned on the charge of taking indecent liberties with a child and while being represented by counsel, the *629accused stated he understood he could get a criminal penalty of up to ten years. He had entered the plea on the advice of his attorney voluntarily and of his own free will, but in doing so he had not been advised by counsel and thus did not know that if the court accepted his plea, it was required to order a sex deviate examination pursuant to sec. 959.15, Stats. The Strickland presumption that an accused is fully advised of possible penalties by his counsel was not valid in fact at this point in the proceeding.
The court then undertook to advise the accused, but in so doing I think made a materially ambiguous statement, certainly ambiguous to a layman under the tension of being sentenced. The court stated in reference to commitment for an indeterminate period of supervision “. . . that said supervision and/or control over you can extend for a period of up to five to ten to fifteen years.” This illustration by the court can reasonably be interpreted to mean indeterminate up to a maximum of fifteen years. After this statement the accused talked to his counsel and again pleaded guilty. The majority assumes this was for the purpose of explaining the possible penalties of the charge. This is pure speculation. If the instructions were as clear as the majority believes them to be, there would be no need for it to assume they needed explanation by counsel. I think the presumption laid down in State v. Strickland (1965), 27 Wis. 2d 623, 135 N. W. 2d 295, that an accused represented by counsel has been fully explained, the nature of the offense charged, the range of the penalties, the possible defenses, and that said counsel has satisfied himself as the accused’s attorney that the accused understood such explanations before permitting him to plead guilty, was overworked in this case in view of the fact that the attorney allowed his client in the first instance to plead guilty when he was ignorant that a sex deviate examination pursuant to sec. 959.15, Stats., was mandatory on the court.
*630The ambiguity was repeated at the time the accused waived the Huebner hearing. Apparently the judge was not sure the accused understood the potential penalties because he asked, “Does he realize that and that he could conceivably be under their control from five to ten to fifteen years; or on the other hand, they can release him at any time earlier . . Here the court treated five, ten and fifteen years as disjunctive to a shorter period. This defendant just was not clearly and unambiguously advised of the total consequences of being found a sex deviate.
An error in overstatement is as disastrous as an understatement because the result is likewise erroneous. The court has a demanding and grave duty in accepting a plea of guilty. It is not enough that part of his instructions is correct. Nor is it justified in giving an ambiguous statement because there is therapeutic value in not stating the ultimate consequences of an illness. One pleading guilty to a crime is entitled to know what he is getting into.
In this court’s experience many attorneys and some trial judges are not fully aware of the consequences of incarceration as a sex deviate and they are not aware the sex deviate facility is the state prison in Waupun, the same place the accused would be sent under a criminal sentence. Nor are most attorneys and judges aware or familiar with the course, nature or extent of treatment at the sex deviate facility.
It is not a question of whether this accused is guilty or not guilty or the consequences of being a sex deviate are not so bad because many sex deviates are paroled. The question presented is one of procedural due process and under the manifest injustice rule of State v. Reppin (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 377, 151 N. W. 2d 9, the accused should have been allowed to withdraw his plea. Consequently I would reverse.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Wilkie and Mr. Justice Heffernan join in this dissent.