State v. Bentley, 94-3310-CR

Citation201 Wis.2d 303,548 N.W.2d 50
Decision Date22 May 1996
Docket NumberNo. 94-3310-CR,94-3310-CR
PartiesSTATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Kamau Kambui BENTLEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. d
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner the cause was argued by Daniel J. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, Attorney General.

For the defendant-appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Mark Lukoff, Assistant State Public Defender.

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, Justice.

The State seeks review of a decision of the court of appeals, 1 reversing an order that denied the postconviction motion of the defendant, Kamau Kambui Bentley, to withdraw his guilty pleas based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals agreed with the defendant that the circuit court erred in denying his motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. Because Bentley's motion on its face failed to allege facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief, we conclude that the circuit court was not required to hold such a hearing. We further conclude that the circuit court's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing constituted a proper exercise of its discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

The facts for purposes of this appeal are undisputed. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Bentley pled guilty to one count of felony murder and one count of first-degree intentional homicide, each as party to the crime. In return, the State agreed to recommend concurrent sentences of 40 years imprisonment on the felony murder charge and life imprisonment for the first-degree intentional homicide charge. 2 The State did not recommend a specific parole eligibility date.

The circuit court sentenced Bentley to concurrent terms of 35 years in prison for felony murder and a mandatory life term for first-degree intentional homicide. The court set Bentley's parole eligibility date on the first-degree intentional homicide count for the year 2039, 45 years from the date of sentencing.

Bentley filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Wis.Stat. § (Rule) 809.30 (1993-94), requesting an order vacating the judgment and permitting him to withdraw his guilty pleas. He alleged that his pleas were not voluntary or informed because his trial counsel erroneously advised him that his minimum parole eligibility date would be 11 years and 5 months. In fact, if the court had not set a parole eligibility date, Bentley's minimum eligibility date would have been 13 years and 4 months. 3 Bentley's motion also requested an evidentiary hearing to support his contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on this misinformation.

The circuit court found that Bentley was not entitled to relief because a review of the record conclusively demonstrated that he understood that he could receive a minimum parole eligibility date well in excess of 11 years, 5 months, and that any parole eligibility date was uncertain. Therefore, the court denied Bentley's motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Bentley appealed from the judgment of conviction and order denying postconviction relief. He argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court of appeals agreed, concluding that Bentley's motion presented sufficient allegations to require a hearing. State v. Bentley, 195 Wis.2d 580, 585, 536 N.W.2d 202 (Ct.App.1995). It reversed the order denying postconviction relief and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. 4 Id. at 583-84, 536 N.W.2d 202.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The parties initially dispute the standard of appellate review applicable to a circuit court's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals stated its review as follows:

Where, as here, a trial court refused to hold a Machner evidentiary hearing, we independently review the defendant's motion "to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to raise a question of fact necessitating a Machner hearing."

Bentley, 195 Wis.2d at 587, 536 N.W.2d 202, quoting State v. Toliver, 187 Wis.2d 346, 360-61, 523 N.W.2d 113, 118 (Ct.App.1994) . See also State v. Tatum, 191 Wis.2d 547, 551, 530 N.W.2d 407 (Ct.App.1995) (applying a de novo review.)

The State argues that the court of appeals erred by applying a de novo standard of review. It asserts that, pursuant to Nelson v. State, 54 Wis.2d 489, 195 N.W.2d 629 (1972), appellate courts must review a trial court's motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the deferential erroneous exercise of discretion standard. The State submits that the decisions of the court of appeals in Tatum, Toliver, and this case are inconsistent with Nelson and overrule Nelson sub silentio. 5

Bentley, relying on Toliver, argues that the court of appeals properly used the de novo standard of review. He reasons that this is appropriate because the circuit court is in no better position than an appellate court to determine whether the motion was legally sufficient to require a hearing. He further asserts that use of the de novo standard in this case is entirely consistent with this court's prior cases which have applied a de novo standard of review when interpreting documents. See, e.g., Delap v. Institute of America, Inc., 31 Wis.2d 507, 510, 143 N.W.2d 476 (1966).

We agree with the State that our standard of review is dictated by Nelson. In Nelson, this court stated the test for determining whether a hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is required as follows:

[I]f a motion to withdraw a guilty plea after judgment and sentence alleges facts which, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing. However, if the defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief, the trial court may in the exercise of its legal discretion deny the motion without a hearing.

Nelson, 54 Wis.2d at 497-98, 195 N.W.2d 629. See also Levesque v. State, 63 Wis.2d 412, 421, 217 N.W.2d 317 (1974); Smith v. State, 60 Wis.2d 373, 381, 210 N.W.2d 678 (1973). 6

While we agree with the State that Nelson controls, we disagree with the State's interpretation of Nelson that our review is limited to the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. Rather, we conclude that Nelson sets forth a two-part test which necessitates a mixed standard of appellate review. If the motion on its face alleges facts which would entitle the defendant to relief, the circuit court has no discretion and must hold an evidentiary hearing. Nelson, 54 Wis.2d at 497, 195 N.W.2d 629. Whether a motion alleges facts which, if true, would entitle a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo. See Nottelson v. DILHR, 94 Wis.2d 106, 116, 287 N.W.2d 763 (1980) (whether facts fulfill a particular legal standard is a question of law).

However, if the motion fails to allege sufficient facts, the circuit court has the discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing based on any one of the three factors enumerated in Nelson. When reviewing a circuit court's discretionary act, this court uses the deferential erroneous exercise of discretion standard. Brookfield v Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Dist., 171 Wis.2d 400, 423, 491 N.W.2d 484 (1992).

II. MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA

Applying the first prong of Nelson, we must consider whether Bentley's motion alleged sufficient facts which would entitle him to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant is entitled to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing only upon a showing of "manifest injustice" by clear and convincing evidence. State v. Rock, 92 Wis.2d 554, 558-59, 285 N.W.2d 739 (1979). This court has recognized that the "manifest injustice" test is met if the defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Id. at 558-59, 285 N.W.2d 739; State v. Reppin, 35 Wis.2d 377, 385-86, 151 N.W.2d 9 (1967) (adopting what is now § 14-2.1 of the American Bar Association's Standards for Criminal Justice (2d ed. supp.1986)). See also State v. Washington, 176 Wis.2d 205, 213-14, 500 N.W.2d 331 (Ct.App.1993).

In Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his federal habeas corpus petition alleging that his guilty plea was involuntary by reason of ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had misinformed him as to his parole eligibility date. The Court held that the two-part test set forth under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Hill, 474 U.S. at 58, 106 S.Ct. at 370.

Under Strickland, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064; State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis.2d 628, 633, 369 N.W.2d 711 (1985). In order to satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, the defendant seeking to withdraw his or her plea must allege facts to show "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." Hill, 474 U.S. at 59, 106 S.Ct. at 370 (footnote omitted).

The court of appeals in this case applied the Strickland test to determine whether Bentley's motion alleged sufficient facts necessitating a hearing. It first held that the motion presented a specific allegation of deficient performance because Bentley's counsel provided him with inaccurate information regarding the minimum mandatory length of incarceration. Bentley, 195 Wis.2d at 587-88, 536 N.W.2d 202. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
976 cases
  • State v. McReynolds
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • 12 Abril 2022
    ...... McReynolds now seeks a Machner hearing on his. ineffective assistance of counsel claim. A defendant,. however, is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary. hearing on his or her postconviction motion. State v. Bentley , 201 Wis.2d 303, 308-11, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). The circuit court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing. only if the defendant alleges "sufficient material facts. that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief.". State v. Allen , 2004 WI 106, ¶14, 274 Wis.2d. ......
  • State v. Von Jackson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • 29 Diciembre 2021
    ...no contest or guilty plea after sentencing must establish a manifest injustice by clear and convincing evidence. State v. Bentley , 201 Wis. 2d 303, 311, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996) ; State v. Booth , 142 Wis. 2d 232, 235, 418 N.W.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1987). A defendant can meet this standard if the de......
  • State v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • 29 Diciembre 2021
    ...170, 189 (2011)). A self-serving statement that he would have gone to trial is insufficient to satisfy the prejudice prong. See Bentley, 201 Wis.2d at 316. A defendant identify facts to support his claim that but for the deficient conduct, he would have insisted on going to trial. Id. For J......
  • State v. Negrete
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 12 Julio 2012
    ...but there is no transcript of the plea hearing, the pleading requirements for such motions are those set forth in State v. Bentley, 201 Wis.2d 303, 310, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). Under the applicable Bentley-type standard, Negrete's affidavit has not alleged sufficient facts that, if true, woul......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Wisconsin Court of Appeals reviews claims for plea withdrawal.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Law Journal No. 2006, February 2006
    • 6 Septiembre 2006
    ...Wis.2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). Instead, the court applied Nelson v. State, 54 Wis.2d 489, 195 N.W.2d 629 (1972), and State v. Bentley, 201 Wis.2d 303, 548 N.W.2d 60 (1996). Because it found Howell's allegations to be only conclusory, it affirmed the denial of the In Howell's motion, he a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT