State v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 10 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-1754-CR.,93-1754-CR. |
| Citation | 532 N.W.2d 111,192 Wis.2d 845 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Martin GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs and oral argument by Michael T. Sullivan, Jr., Milwaukee.
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued Michael R. Klos, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals that affirmed a judgment of conviction and orders denying postconviction relief entered by the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Honorable Robert W. Landry, Judge. Mr. Martin Garcia entered an Alford plea1as part of a plea agreement, and was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, sec. 939.32(1)(a), Stats., (1993-94), and injury by conduct regardless of life, sec. 940.23, Stats., (1993-94). Mr. Garcia asserts three claims: (1) Alford pleas should not be allowed in Wisconsin, (2) he was confused about the plea so the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it found no fair and just reason to allow the plea to be withdrawn, and (3) a manifest injustice will occur if he is not allowed to withdraw the plea because it was involuntary and unknowing. We affirm.
On June 27, 1987, Mr. Alejandro Tejeda and Mr. Juan Braun were shot on South Sixteenth Street in Milwaukee. As a result of the gun shot wounds, both victims were partially paralyzed. One was confined to a wheelchair. Garcia was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder for the shooting incident on August 15, 1987, and was served with a warrant by Detective Radomski (Radomski) in Iowa on August 20, 1987. Shortly thereafter, Garcia gave a statement to Radomski in which he confessed to the shooting.
Garcia waived his right to a preliminary hearing on August 27, 1987. Attorney Martin Kohler (Kohler), the third attorney to represent Garcia, was appointed on February 24, 1988. Some time before Kohler's appointment, the District Attorney offered the plea agreement which was eventually accepted.
Garcia told Kohler that "the people on the street" were telling him that the victims would "not show up" at his trial. However, on the day of trial, October 17, 1988, several witnesses to the shooting, including both of the victims, came to court. The State had flown one of the witnesses in from California to testify. Ms. Connie Ward (Ward), an interpreter for Garcia, also arrived. When Garcia saw the witnesses, he told Kohler that he wanted to discuss the Alford plea. After a lunch break, Garcia decided to enter an Alford plea in return for a reduced charge of injury by conduct regardless of life on one of the two attempted murder counts.
To do so, he signed two forms. The first was a "Guilty Plea Questionnaire and Waiver of Rights Form" that described the rights which are given up when a plea is entered and described the charges being pled to. On the front the charges were listed as "ATTEMPT MURDER" and "IBCROL," and on the back they were listed as "ATTEMPT 1° MURDER" and "IBCROL." IBCROL is an abbreviation for injury by conduct regardless of life, although that fact was not disclosed on the form. The second form was a "Waiver of Trial By Jury" and stated that the defendant "waives trial by jury and consents to immediate trial before the court without a jury."
After Garcia signed the forms, the prosecutor described the plea negotiations to the court, with an interpreter present, leading to the following colloquy:
The court went on to question Garcia about whether he understood that the court could impose the maximum sentence on the charges, to which Garcia, through the interpreter, answered "Yes, Your Honor." The conversation continued:
The court then asked Garcia whether he was agreeing to give up a series of rights, including the right to a jury trial. To each question, Garcia answered "Yes, Your Honor." After the prosecutor read into the record the facts the State was prepared to prove, the circuit court accepted the plea.
One month later, Garcia filed a motion to withdraw his plea. Kohler withdrew from the case. After two more attorneys withdrew, Garcia's sixth counsel, Mr. Domingo Cruz, was appointed. The circuit court denied Garcia's motion on April 5, 1989. After sentencing, Garcia's seventh and current counsel, Mr. Michael T. Sullivan, Jr., was appointed and he filed another motion to withdraw the plea pursuant to secs. 809.30 and 974.02, Stats., (1993-94). The circuit court denied that motion on August 21, 1990.
Garcia appealed both orders, and the court of appeals reversed the April 5, 1989 order because the circuit court had applied the wrong legal standard, i.e. the circuit court ruled that the plea could not be withdrawn because there was no showing of "manifest injustice" where it should have used the more liberal standard allowing withdrawal upon the showing of "any fair and just reason." State v. Garcia, No. 90-2025-CR, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. June 4, 1991). On remand, hearings were held on January 28, 1992, April 17, 1992, and May 19, 1993, and the circuit court again denied Garcia's motion. Garcia again appealed the judgment of conviction and orders denying withdrawal of his plea, and the court of appeals this time affirmed. Garcia then petitioned this Court for review, which was granted.
An Alford plea is a guilty plea in which the defendant pleads guilty while either maintaining his innocence or not admitting having committed the crime. The court of appeals held Alford pleas to be acceptable in State v. Johnson, 105 Wis. 2d 657, 661-63, 314 N.W.2d 897 (Ct. App. 1981). However, although this Court has cited North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), with approval,2 the issue of the appropriateness of Alford pleas has never been directly presented to this Court. This case presents the question, and we now hold that the circuit courts of Wisconsin may, in their discretion, accept Alford pleas.
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 361-62 (1978). The benefit created is a "mutuality of advantage" whereby both prosecutors and defendants have incentives to avoid trial. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 (1970). The defendant's motives are to limit his exposure to punishment or avoid the stress of trial and the State's motive is to avoid exhausting scarce resources. Id.
A defendant may wish to plead guilty yet publicly maintain his innocence to avoid ridicule or embarrassment, such as where the charge is sexual assault of children. See State v. McQuay, 154 Wis. 2d 116, 120-21, 452 N.W.2d 377 (1990). Other times he might plead guilty while protesting his innocence because he does not think the jury will believe his claim of self-defense or accident. See People v. Wolff, 208 N.W.2d 457, 463 (Mich. 1973). Whether or not the defendant's motive can be ascertained by outside observers, the Alford plea gives the defendant a valuable option. Garcia's position would deny to a defendant who protests his innocence or does not admit having committed the crime the right to make a choice at the bargaining table. Instead, Garcia "argues in effect that the State should not have allowed him this choice but should have insisted on proving him guilty of the more serious offense." Alford, 400 U.S. at 38-39.
The Alford plea is not inconsistent with this Court's decision in Ernst v. State, 43 Wis. 2d 661, 170 N.W.2d 713 (1969),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jenkins
...for withdrawal, unless the prosecution has been substantially prejudiced by reliance on the defendant's plea." State v. Garcia, 192 Wis.2d 845, 861, 532 N.W.2d 111 (1995). In 1999 the court said that where a defendant moves to withdraw his plea before sentencing, "the circuit court is to lo......
-
State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz
...stress and embarrassment of trial and to limit one's exposure to punishment. See Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S.Ct. 160; Garcia, 192 Wis.2d at 856-57, 532 N.W.2d 111. ¶29 Warren argues that fundamental fairness principles of due process dictate that defendants who enter an Alford plea must ha......
-
State v. Nash
...the defendant pleads guilty while either maintaining his innocence or not admitting having committed the crime." State v. Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d 845, 856, 532 N.W.2d 111 (1995). Nash was convicted of second-degree sexual assault of a child after entering an Alford plea. After sentencing, Nash ......
-
State v. Lopez
...admitted was deemed unreliable and therefore was not a “fair and just reason” for guilty plea withdrawal); State v. Garcia, 192 Wis.2d 845, 863, 532 N.W.2d 111 (1995) (holding that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw th......
-
Sentencing and Conventional Number Preferences: A Research Note
...his innocence or refusing to confess, provided there exists strong, independent proof of guilt (State v. Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d 845, 532 N.W.2d 111 82 • Justice Research and PolicySentencing and Conventional Number Preferences • 83Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, tha......