State v. Beyer
| Citation | 960 N.W.2d 408,2021 WI 59 |
| Decision Date | 15 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2019AP1983-CR,2019AP1983-CR |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jacob Richard BEYER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
For the defendant-appellant, there were briefs filed by Mark A. Eisenberg, Jack S. Linberg, and Eisenberg Law Offices, S.C., Madison. There was an oral argument by Jack S. Linberg.
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by Kara Lynn Janson, assistant attorney general; with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Kara Lynn Janson.
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Ellen Henak and Ellen Henak Law Office, S.C., Milwaukee.
ROGGENSACK, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which ZIEGLER, C.J., ANN WALSH BRADLEY, REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, DALLET, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined, and in which HAGEDORN, J., joined with respect to Part I and Parts II.A., C., and D.
¶1 This case is before us on certification from the court of appeals1 pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 (2019-20).2 The certified issue is: "whether the guilty-plea-waiver rule applies when a defendant pleads not guilty to an offense, but stipulates to the inculpatory facts supporting each element of the offense, and explicitly agrees to a finding of guilt at a hearing before the circuit court at which no witness testifies."
¶2 We conclude that the occurrence in the circuit court, while not a guilty plea made in the customary mode, also was not a court trial. We further conclude that, while parties may stipulate to facts for purposes of a criminal trial, trials based on stipulated facts and a stipulated finding of guilt are not permissible in Wisconsin. Finally, we conclude that Beyer cannot be held to the stipulation he entered in circuit court because he entered it relying on a procedure that we conclude is invalid. Therefore, this matter is remanded to the circuit court so that Beyer can choose whether to enter a plea or proceed to trial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶3 The City of Madison Police Department executed a search warrant on Jacob Beyer's apartment on October 28, 2017. The basis for the warrant was the result of a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation " ‘on peer to peer file sharing networks’ looking for child pornography." Through its investigation, DOJ "discovered a file containing [child pornography]," and the suspect IP address led to an apartment in Madison occupied by Beyer. After Madison police executed the search warrant, Beyer admitted to possessing child pornography, and a search of his computer revealed at least ten images of child pornography.
¶4 The State charged Beyer with ten counts of possession of child pornography contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.12(1m). At Beyer's initial appearance, he entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently, "Beyer hired a forensic computer examiner to confirm that the video that served as the basis for the search warrant existed on his computer." Beyer's forensic examiner did not find the video on Beyer's hard drive. Beyer, challenging the State's basis for probable cause for the search warrant, filed a "Notice of Motion and Motion to View the State's Computer and its Undercover Software." The circuit court3 denied Beyer's discovery motion concluding that a "suppression motion hearing ... would be the proper forum" to address Beyer's evidentiary claims.
¶5 Beyer filed a motion to suppress arguing that the search warrant was invalid because "(1) the search warrant lacked probable cause in and of itself; (2) the agents relying on the search warrant knew that the search warrant lacked probable cause; (3) the agents omitted and provided misleading information concerning its undercover investigative software." After a hearing, the circuit court denied Beyer's motion to suppress. The circuit court found that "[the DOJ agent] truthfully asserted that he's relied upon this type of evidentiary trail in the past and found it to be accurate and reliable." Despite the circuit court's desire for more individually tailored warrants and "a more candid assessment of the reliability of this method of a search," the court found no police misconduct.
¶6 After the circuit court denied Beyer's motion to suppress, Beyer indicated that he did not intend to go to trial.4 Rather, the State and Beyer agreed to a truncated procedure wherein the parties "stipulate[d] and agree[d] that the [c]ourt may make a finding of guilt based upon the following set of facts." The stipulation listed nine facts, which satisfied the elements of possession of child pornography. Stipulation 10 stated "Jacob Beyer waives his right to a jury trial and agrees to have the [c]ourt find him guilty based upon the above stipulated set of facts."5
¶7 The circuit court, noting the rarity of the procedure at hand, asked Beyer's defense counsel if there were any "legal or strategic advantage[s] ... for proceeding in this fashion as opposed to appeal." Beyer's defense counsel reasoned that "when someone pleads guilty to a charge, you preserve the right for your suppression motion, but if you recall, there was a also a discovery motion in this case, and I'm convinced that if ... Mr. Beyer pleads guilty, he waives that right to the discovery issue."
¶8 The circuit court confirmed with Beyer that Beyer intended to move forward with the proposed procedure. In doing so, the court explained to Beyer that by agreeing to the procedure he was waiving certain rights including his right to a trial by jury, his right to be present during witness testimony, and his right to present a defense. Beyer acknowledged that he understood his rights and confirmed that he intended to waive them. The circuit court ensured that Beyer was not threatened or coerced into making this decision and asked Beyer's counsel if he thought Beyer's assent was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Beyer's counsel confirmed that he believed that it was. Beyer's defense counsel agreed that the stipulated facts proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the charged offense. Therefore, the circuit court convicted Beyer and sentenced him to three years’ initial confinement and two years’ extended supervision. Beyer's sentence was stayed pending appeal.
¶9 Beyer appealed, and the court of appeals certified the above issue to us. The issues raised at the court of appeals that caused it to certify the appeal to us were the following: "(1) whether the procedure used at what the State refers to as the ‘so-called trial’ is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea; (2) whether that procedure triggers application of the guilty-plea-waiver rule to bar Beyer from raising on appeal a challenge to the circuit court's denial of his discovery motion; and (3) whether the procedure is recognized under Wisconsin law." We accepted the certification, and we accordingly assume jurisdiction over all issues presented on appeal. See State v. Denk, 2008 WI 130, ¶29, 315 Wis. 2d 5, 758 N.W.2d 775.
¶10 Whether a proceeding was a trial is a question of law; we review questions of law independently. See, e.g., City of Pewaukee v. Carter, 2004 WI 136, ¶¶23, 31-35, 276 Wis. 2d 333, 688 N.W.2d 449 (). Further, whether an attempted method of criminal procedure is permitted in Wisconsin is a question of law that we review independently. See State v. Riekkoff, 112 Wis. 2d 119, 124-25, 332 N.W.2d 744 (1983) ().
¶11 Finally, "[w]hether a plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is a question of constitutional fact." State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶19, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906. In such cases, "[w]e accept the circuit court's findings of historical and evidentiary facts unless they are clearly erroneous but we determine independently whether those facts demonstrate that the defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary." Id.
¶12 At the outset, because the parties’ main contention is whether the guilty plea waiver rule should attach to the procedure that Beyer agreed to, we determine whether the "stipulated trial", in which Beyer stipulated to his guilt, was actually a trial or whether it was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea despite its label. Our discussion informs both whether the procedure here was permissible and whether Beyer can be held to his stipulation. We first explain the differences between the two procedures; we then determine which more closely fits what occurred here.
¶13 We begin with guilty pleas. A guilty plea "is an ‘admission that [the defendant] committed the crime charged against him.’ " United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 32, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) ). "By entering a plea of guilty, the accused is not simply stating that he did the discrete acts described in the indictment; he is admitting guilt of a substantive crime." Broce, 488 U.S. at 570, 109 S.Ct. 757. Importantly, a guilty plea "is an admission that ‘all of the factual and legal elements necessary to sustain a binding, final judgment of guilt ...’ are true." State v. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, ¶30, 294 Wis. 2d 62, 716 N.W.2d 886 (quoting Broce, 488 U.S. at 569, 109 S.Ct. 757 ). Accordingly, "nothing remains [for the circuit court] but to give judgment and determine punishment." Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Although they do not contain the same express admission of guilt as a guilty plea, we have held that pleas of no contest and Alford pleas6 have the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rogers
...and explicitly asks the Court to make a finding as to guilt or innocence at the close of the hearing where no witness has testified. The Beyer court concluded that a stipulated of guilt is not permissible in Wisconsin. Id., ¶24. The circuit court described that there, Beyer "could not be he......
-
Weekly Case Digests August 30, 2021 September 3, 2021.
...opinion in which DALLET, J., joined. Full Text [divider] WI Supreme Court Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Jacob Richard Beyer Case No.: 2021 WI 59 Focus: Certification Question Guilty-plea-waiver This case is before us on certification from the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. (Rule......
-
Certification Question Guilty-plea-waiver Rule.
...Derek Hawkins WI Supreme Court Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Jacob Richard Beyer Case No.: 2021 WI 59 Focus: Certification Question Guilty-plea-waiver This case is before us on certification from the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. (Rule) 809.61 (2019-20). The certified issue is:......