State v. Cajujuan Pegeese
| Decision Date | 31 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 2017AP741-CR,2017AP741-CR |
| Citation | 928 N.W.2d 590,2019 WI 60,387 Wis.2d 119 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Javien CAJUJUAN PEGEESE, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Thomas B. Aquino, assistant state public defender. There was an oral argument by Thomas B. Aquino.
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by Aaron R. O'neil, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general of Wisconsin. There was an oral argument by Aaron R. O'neil.
¶1 This is a review of an unpublished, per curiam decision of the court of appeals, State v. Pegeese, No. 2017AP741–CR, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2018), affirming the circuit court's1 order denying Javien Cajujuan Pegeese's ("Pegeese") postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Pegeese claims that the circuit court's plea colloquy was defective under Wis. Stat. § 971.08 (2015–16)2 and State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), because the circuit court failed to sufficiently explain, and Pegeese did not understand, the constitutional rights he would be waiving by entering a plea. As a result of the claimed defects, Pegeese argues that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter his plea. Pegeese seeks to withdraw his plea and asks that this court remand to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing under Bangert. Pegeese also requests that this court exercise its superintending authority to require circuit courts to, at every plea colloquy, verbally advise a defendant of each individual constitutional right being waived and verify that a defendant understands the waiver of each right.
¶2 The State asserts that the circuit court's plea colloquy was not defective because a "Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights" form ("Form CR-227"), completed by Pegeese with counsel prior to the colloquy, expressly listed each constitutional right Pegeese waived and required Pegeese to indicate next to each right that he knew and understood the right he was waiving. The State asserts that the in-court colloquy otherwise ensured that Pegeese was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights. The State therefore argues that Pegeese has not met his burden to show that he is entitled to a Bangert hearing, and that this court should not exercise its superintending authority, as Pegeese proposes, that circuit courts be required to personally advise defendants of each constitutional right being waived.
¶3 The circuit court's colloquy with Pegeese verified that the constitutional rights at issue were contained in Form CR-227, that Pegeese completed and signed the form with counsel, and that he wanted no further time to discuss matters with his lawyer. The colloquy further verified that Pegeese comprehended the contents of the form, and he and his lawyer acknowledged that he understood each constitutional right he was waiving by pleading guilty. The circuit court concluded that Pegeese was "freely, knowingly[,] and intelligently" entering his plea.3
¶4 We conclude that Pegeese has not met his burden to demonstrate that the plea colloquy was defective so as to entitle him to the relief requested. We further decline to exercise our superintending authority to impose a specific requirement that at a plea hearing circuit courts must individually recite and specifically address each constitutional right being waived and then otherwise verify the defendant's understanding of each constitutional right being waived. Therefore, we affirm the court of appeals.
¶5 On June 24, 2015, the State filed a criminal complaint charging then-16-year-old Pegeese with armed robbery as a party to a crime in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 943.32(2) and 939.05. The criminal complaint alleged that on April 24, 2015, three individuals with their faces covered approached a pizza delivery driver, who was making a delivery to a home. It further alleged that one of the individuals ordered the delivery driver on the ground, that another individual brandished a pistol and struck the delivery driver in the head with the pistol, and that one of the three stole $ 168 in cash and a key fob from the delivery driver's pockets. According to the criminal complaint, police learned from the owner of the phone that was used to place the order for the pizza delivery that she overheard Pegeese and another person talking the next day about how one of them had "pistol whipped" the delivery driver.
¶6 On August 13, 2015, Pegeese pled guilty to robbery with threat of force as a party to a crime, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 943.32(1)(b) and 939.05. Prior to the plea hearing, Pegeese completed Form CR-227.4
Specifically, the "Constitutional Rights" section of Form CR-227 states as follows:
Waiver of each of these constitutional rights is acknowledged by marking the box next to each with an "X."
¶7 In the form, Pegeese confirmed his understanding of his plea agreement with the State: a joint recommendation of three years of probation. Pegeese acknowledged that he understood "the judge is not bound by any plea agreement or recommendations and may impose the maximum penalty," and that he understood the maximum penalty he faced was 15 years in prison, a $ 50,000 fine, or both. In the "Voluntary Plea" section of the form, Pegeese acknowledged,
¶8 Pegeese signed and dated the form, which stated by the signature block:
I have reviewed and understand this entire document and any attachments. I have reviewed it with my attorney (if represented). I have answered all questions truthfully and either I or my attorney have checked the boxes. I am asking the court to accept my plea and find me guilty.
Pegeese's attorney also signed the form, acknowledging that he discussed the form with Pegeese, believed Pegeese understood the form and the plea agreement, and that Pegeese was pleading "freely, voluntarily, and intelligently."
¶9 During the August 13 plea hearing, the circuit court conducted the following plea colloquy with Pegeese:
¶10 After confirming again with Pegeese's attorney that Pegeese's plea was given "freely, knowingly[,] and intelligently," the circuit court accepted the plea and specifically found that Pegeese's plea was "freely, knowingly[,] and intelligently made." The circuit court withheld sentence, and instead put Pegeese on probation for three years consistent with the parties' joint recommendation.
¶11 On December 12, 2016, Pegeese filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.30(2)(h), seeking withdrawal of his guilty plea. Pegeese argued that the circuit court's plea colloquy was constitutionally deficient because the circuit court failed to properly ensure on the record that Pegeese fully understood all of the constitutional rights he was waiving when he entered his guilty plea. Specifically, Pegeese asserted that despite completing Form CR-227, consulting with counsel, and engaging in the plea colloquy with the circuit court, he did not understand his constitutional rights to "(1) remain silent or testify, (2) use subpoenas to require witnesses to testify, (3) have a jury trial where all 12 jurors have to agree on guilt, (4) confront and cross-examine people who testify against him, and (5) make the [S]tate prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As a result, Pegeese sought to withdraw his plea and requested an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Bangert.
¶12 On March 31, 2017, the circuit court denied Pegeese's motion for postconviction relief. The circuit court noted that the plea colloquy in Pegeese's case was "almost identical" to the plea colloquy that occurred in State v. Moederndorfer, 141 Wis....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Birk
...that future violation of the rules concerning citation of unpublished opinions may result in sanctions.7 Neither party cites State v. Pegeese , 2019 WI 60, ¶4, 387 Wis. 2d 119, 928 N.W.2d 590, a recent case in which our supreme court declined to exercise its superintending authority to "imp......
-
State v. Gaston
...defendant may show manifest injustice by proving ‘that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.’ " State v. Pegeese , 2019 WI 60, ¶15, 387 Wis. 2d 119, 928 N.W.2d 590 (citation omitted). "Whether a defendant entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntari......
-
State v. S.C.M. (In re Interest of S.C.M.)
...the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, a guilty or no-contest plea must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary. State v. Pegeese , 2019 WI 60, ¶21, 387 Wis. 2d 119, 928 N.W.2d 590. To ensure that a plea is knowing, intelligent and voluntary, a circuit court must fulfill se......
-
State v. Kundilovski
...by clear and convincing evidence, that a refusal to allow plea withdrawal would result in manifest injustice. State v. Cajujuan Pegeese, 2019 WI 60, ¶15, 387 Wis. 2d 119, 928 N.W.2d 590. "A manifest injustice occurs when there has been 'a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the ple......