Court Opinion

ID: 9668315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:09:19.116037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:44.567762
License: Public Domain

NETTESHEIM, J.
(concurring). I write separately to address the dissent’s disagreement with the mandate of this case which directs either a resentencing or the opportunity for McQuay to withdraw his Alford pleas.
While plea bargaining is the subject of much controversy and debate, see Fine, Plea Bargaining: An Unnecessary Evil, 70 Marq. L. Rev. 615 (1987), this case does not address the wisdom of the practice — a matter beyond the power and authority of this court.
Although controversial, plea bargaining rests upon one fundamental and well-recognized principle — prose-*834cutorial discretion. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has directed that this discretion is to be accorded substantial deference. “The district attorney in Wisconsin is a constitutional officer and is endowed with a discretion that approaches the quasi-judicial.” State ex rel. Kurkierewicz v. Cannon, 42 Wis. 2d 368, 378, 166 N.W.2d 255, 260 (1969). The prosecuting attorney has wide discretion in the manner in which his duties shall be performed and such discretion cannot be interfered with unless he proceeds in excess of jurisdiction. Id. at 379, 166 N.W.2d at 260.
No defendant can compel plea negotiations. No statutory or constitutional right to plea negotiations exists. It lies completely within the discretion of the prosecutor whether plea bargaining will occur. Thus, absent selective or discriminatory practices, a prosecutor could choose not to plea bargain at all.1
At the same time, our supreme court has cautioned that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the area of plea bargains is not unfettered, State ex rel. White v. Gray, 57 Wis. 2d 17, 29, 203 N.W.2d 638, 644 (1973), and the practice must be open to judicial scrutiny. Id. at 22, 203 N.W.2d at 640. From this scrutiny has evolved the principle that plea agreements which fail to furnish the public adequate protection, depreciate the seriousness of the offense or promote disrespect for the law are contrary to public policy. State v. Jorgensen, 137 Wis. 2d 163, 169, 404 N.W.2d 66, 68 (Ct. App. 1987).
While the wisdom of plea bargaining is not our domain, the wisdom of a particular plea agreement in a particular case is. Both the supreme court and the court *835of appeals have addressed the public policy ramifications of plea agreements in cases on appeal. See, e.g., Grant v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 441, 243 N.W.2d 186 (1976); State ex rel. White v. Gray, 57 Wis. 2d 17, 203 N.W.2d 638 (1973); State v. Jorgensen, 137 Wis. 2d 163, 404 N.W.2d 66 (Ct. App. 1987). No case limits the application of this rule to trial courts only. Thus, appellate as well as trial courts are properly bound by this principle.
The dissent does not argue that our scrutiny of the plea agreement in this case is improper. In fact, the dissent “wholeheartedly” agrees with the majority’s conclusion that the plea agreement is contrary to public policy because it keeps relevant sentencing information from the court. The dissent, however, then faults the majority for choosing to do something about it.
The dissent’s justification for “leaving well enough alone” is to liken the majority opinion to a “supervisory” opinion and then to engage in a balancing test in order to determine whether any further proceedings in the trial court are warranted.
Supervisory powers contemplate courts formulating “procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983) (emphasis added). Evaluating a plea bargain to assure that public policy is served is not the mere formulation of a procedural rule. To the contrary, it is an important substantive determination.
Supervisory rules are designed to: (1) implement a remedy for violation of recognized rights; (2) preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before the jury; and (3) design remedies to deter illegal conduct. Id.
None of these concerns warranting the exercise of supervisory powers is present in this case. First, as the *836majority prominently states, the compelling consideration in this case is the interest of the public in assuring that relevant sentencing information is not kept from the court. This consideration does not promote any recognized right of McQuay. To the contrary, it runs directly against his interests. The majority’s ruling is not supervisory because it does not implement any remedy for any violation of McQuay’s rights.
Second, the issue in this case has nothing to do with a conviction premised upon a jury verdict. In fact, a trial has never even occurred in this case. Therefore, the majority’s ruling cannot be an exercise of supervisory powers prompted by improper considerations put before a jury.
Third, this case does not concern illegal governmental conduct. While this court (including the dissenter) concludes that the plea agreement in this case is contrary to public policy, nothing in the majority holding brands any conduct as illegal, requiring a sanction to deter such future governmental conduct.2 The remedy fashioned assumes neither the form nor the spirit of a sanction to deter future illegal conduct. No evidence is suppressed. No charges are dismissed. No discipline of counsel for unethical conduct is suggested. See State v. Ruiz, 118 Wis. 2d 177, 203 n. 5, 347 N.W.2d 352, 364 (1984). The mandate of this case simply puts the matter back into a posture where a sentencing based upon proper factors, or withdrawal of a plea if necessary, can occur. Thus, the majority holding is not an exercise of our supervisory powers.
*837As such, the application of the balancing test utilized by courts in supervisory powers cases and as adopted by the dissent is inappropriate. This plea agreement is contrary to public policy. It keeps relevant and important information from the court — the very entity which is to make an informed sentencing decision. I fail to see how we can let such a sentence stand — regardless of its nature and length.
Even if the balancing test were to be applied, I question the dissent’s conclusion that the sentencing should stand. First, I disagree that exchanging a known sentence for a sentencing exposure which could result in literally hundreds of years of imprisonment is truly a “benefit.”
Second, the dissent concludes that McQuay’s present sentence is adequate to outweigh the public policy violation in this case. The uncertainty of this reasoning is troubling. It has no perimeters or guidelines. What if the sentence were fifteen years? Five years? Probation? The opportunity for unevenness in this approach is self-evident. Some sentences under illegal plea agreements would be voided — some would be upheld.
Finally, I question the dissent’s assumption that the wishes and best interests of all the victims are well served by salvaging this plea agreement and the resultant sentence. While certain of the victims’ parents presumably approved of the agreement, the record reveals that one parent wanted a prison sentence which would keep McQuay “out of the community as long as possible.” Another parent wanted McQuay to receive a sentence in excess of the bargained sentence. Still another parent stated that he was “not satisfied with the plea bargain.” Certainly these parents did not view the state’s recommended sentence as a fair exchange for *838their children being spared the witness stand. The dissent says this is an unwarranted inference. It is not. These incidents of parental disagreement with this plea agreement are documented in the record.
The testimonial experience in a criminal case for any victim or witness, particularly children, is certainly traumatic. But whether this price is properly paid in order to avoid the victims’ perception of a bad plea agreement or to obtain the victims’ perceptions of justice is a decision better left to the victims or those who speak for them. In effect the dissent says to the parents who dislike this plea bargain that the courts, better than they, know what is best for their children. While the wisdom of these parental decisions might be questioned, I would hesitate to substitute this court’s judgment for that of a parent on such a crucial, personal and sensitive matter.
If all the parents endorsed this plea agreement, the dissent’s point might be well taken. However, in light of some parental disenchantment with this agreement, I think the dissent unwisely presumes to speak for this faction when it engages in its balancing test.

 An example is Alaska’s abolishment of plea b argaining by directive of the attorney general who has supervisory authority over all the state’s district attorneys. See Fine, Plea Bargaining: An Unnecessary Evil, 70 Marq. L. Rev. 615, 627-28 (1978).

 Moreover, this case does not concern only governmental conduct. Both the state and McQuay are parties to the void agreement.