State v. Gracia

• Decision Date: 31 January 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 2011AP813–CR, 2011AP814.,s. 2011AP813–CR, 2011AP814.
• Citation: 826 N.W.2d 87,345 Wis.2d 488,2013 WI 15
• Parties: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Juan G. GRACIA, Defendant–Appellant–Petitioner. In the matter of the refusal of Juan G. Gracia. City of Menasha, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Juan G. Gracia, Defendant–Appellant–Petitioner.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

345 Wis.2d 488

826 N.W.2d 87

2013 WI 15

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Juan G. GRACIA, Defendant–Appellant–Petitioner.

In the matter of the refusal of Juan G. Gracia.

City of Menasha, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Juan G. Gracia, Defendant–Appellant–Petitioner.

Nos. 2011AP813–CR, 2011AP814.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Argued Oct. 23, 2012.

Decided Jan. 31, 2013.

For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed by John Holevoet and Holevoet Law Office, LLC, Madison, and oral argument by John Holevoet.

For the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was argued by David H. Perlman, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general.

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.

[345 Wis.2d 493]¶ 1 This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals¹ that affirmed the circuit court. This case involves two distinct issues. The first issue is whether a warrantless search of Gracia's bedroom² was a valid exercise of the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement under the federal and state constitutions.³ The second issue is factually unrelated and involves whether Gracia can successfully collaterally attack his second operating a motor vehicle under the influence (OWI) ⁴ from 1998 on the grounds that he did not validly waive his right to counsel.

¶ 2 Gracia moved to suppress evidence obtained during and resulting from the search on the grounds that the police had illegally entered his bedroom despite his objection and without a warrant. The circuit court for Winnebago County, the Honorable Barbara H. Key presiding, denied Gracia's motion to suppress, holding that the police officers were exercising their community caretaker function when they entered Gracia's bedroom after tracking him from a single-car accident, and their actions were constitutionally permitted. Gracia also challenged a prior conviction, claiming that he had not validly waived his right to counsel in that case. The circuit court found that Gracia validly waived his right to counsel during his 1998 no contest plea hearing. Gracia subsequently pleaded no contest to operating with a prohibited alcohol content, fourth offense, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(b)⁵ with an alcohol fine enhancer under § 346.65(2)(g)1. The court of appeals affirmed on both issues.

¶ 3 We hold that the circuit court properly denied Gracia's motion to suppress. The test for the community caretaker exception was recently laid out by this court in State v. Pinkard and looks at whether a search or seizure took place, whether the police exercised a bona fide community caretaker function, and whether the intrusion was reasonable based on the attendant circumstances. State v. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, ¶ 29, 327 Wis.2d 346, 785 N.W.2d 592. Here, the police were following up on a major single-vehicle accident which left the front end of the car driven by Gracia extensively damaged and a traffic pole completely knocked down. They validly entered the home on consent of Gracia's brother and after his brother broke open Gracia's bedroom door, without any prompting by the police, reasonably exercised their community caretaker function when they crossed the threshold into Gracia's bedroom. The police acted on their concern that Gracia might have sustained a significant injury in the auto accident. Given these facts, the warrantless search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

¶ 4 We further hold that despite a technically deficient plea colloquy, Gracia knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel before he pleaded no contest to his second OWI in 1998, a violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(b) (1997–98), operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration. ⁶ He understood the difficulties and disadvantages of self-representation. He had familiarity with the role of lawyers, and he made a cost-benefit decision not to hire an attorney because he was guilty and the district attorney offered him the minimum penalty. The circuit court properly denied the collateral attack of his earlier conviction and thus considered the 1998 conviction in determining that Gracia had three prior relevant convictions.

I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 This case presents two distinct issues for this court to decide. Each issue has unrelated facts. The first issue is related to a warrantless search, and the second is a collateral attack of a prior conviction. The facts of each will be presented in turn.

¶ 6 The City of Menasha Police Department received a report of a traffic signal down that was impeding traffic. The signal, located on a median, had been completely ripped from the ground, and was lying half in the median and half in the road. It appeared from the scene that a vehicle had struck the signal and then left. At the scene, the police found a mangled license plate lying next to the damaged traffic signal; the license plate number 228JJD was listed as belonging to a 1999 Buick Regal LS.

¶ 7 After some investigation,⁷ the police arrived at a trailer home where Juan G. Gracia (“Gracia”) lived, and they found the Buick Regal in the driveway. The Buick had clearly been in an accident. Its front license plate was missing. There was significant front-end damage with pieces of the front bumper missing. There were yellow markings on the side of the door panel. The front end had been caved in, as if the car had struck a pole, and a pair of eyeglasses and a hat sat on the front passenger seat. According to the officers, the damage seemed fresh.

¶ 8 When the police officers arrived at the trailer home, the lights were off inside, and no one answered the door. As the police were about to leave, a pickup truck arrived driven by Jaime Gracia, who told police he was Gracia's brother and lived at that residence with Gracia. Jaime Gracia stated that his brother should be inside. The officers asked if they could come inside, explaining that they were worried about Gracia's potential injuries and that they needed to make sure he was okay. Jaime Gracia asked them to wait outside and went into the house by himself. After several minutes, he allowed the officers inside and told them that Gracia had locked himself in his bedroom. Jaime Gracia brought the officers to Gracia's bedroom door. Inside his room, Gracia yelled in Spanish and English, telling them to “go away.” Both the officers and Jaime Gracia tried the door handle. One of the officers, Officer Lenss, testified that Jaime Gracia then “put his shoulder through the door and opened the bedroom door.” Once the door was open, the officers entered the room and made contact with Gracia, who was lying on the bed. The officers observed Gracia's bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the strong odor of intoxicants emanating from Gracia. Gracia eventually admitted to driving the Buick. The officers then arrested Gracia for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

[345 Wis.2d 498]¶ 9 Gracia moved to suppress the evidence of his intoxication obtained after the police entered his bedroom. At the suppression hearing, the State argued that the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement applied. The circuit court agreed and denied the suppression motion.⁸ Gracia pleaded no contest to operatinga motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol content, fourth offense, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(b) and then appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's denial of the suppression motion. On appeal, Gracia also collaterally attacked a prior conviction as the result of an invalid waiver of the right to counsel. Additional relevant facts will be incorporated throughout the opinion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 10 This court reviews motions to suppress by examining the constitutional challenge to the search. “Whether police conduct has violated the constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures is a question of constitutional fact.” State v. St. Martin, 2011 WI 44, ¶ 16, 334 Wis.2d 290, 800 N.W.2d 858 (citations omitted). We defer to the circuit court's findings of facts while “independently apply[ing] those historical facts to the constitutional standard.” Id.

[345 Wis.2d 499] ¶ 11 We review de novo “[w]hether a defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” State v. Ernst, 2005 WI 107, ¶ 10, 283 Wis.2d 300, 699 N.W.2d 92. In that review, we apply constitutional principles to the facts of the case. State v. Klessig, 211 Wis.2d 194, 204, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997).

III. ANALYSIS

¶ 12 First we determine if the police exercised a valid community caretaker function; if they did not, and no other exception applied, the warrantless search would violate both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Second we look at whether Gracia can collaterally attack his 1998 conviction for second-offense OWI on the grounds that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel because he was not aware of the difficulties and disadvantages of self-representation.⁹

A. Police Search and the Community Caretaker Function

¶ 13 There are two searches in this case—the entry of the trailer and the entry of the bedroom. Because Jaime Gracia consented to the police entry to the trailer and Gracia does not object to that, we look only at the search of the bedroom.¹⁰Gracia argues that the search of his bedroom was not a valid exercise of the police's community caretaker function. The State asks this court to affirm the circuit court's finding that the community caretaker function was validly exercised in this situation.

¶ 14 The community caretaker exception is analyzed in the same manner under both the state and federal constitutions. State v. Kramer, 2009 WI 14, ¶ 18, 315 Wis.2d 414, 759 N.W.2d 598;Pinkard, 327 Wis.2d 346, ¶ 14, 785 N.W.2d 592. This court...