State v. Sturgeon
| Decision Date | 17 November 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-2885-CR.,98-2885-CR. |
| Citation | 231 Wis.2d 487,605 N.W.2d 589 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael R. STURGEON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the brief of Terry Evan Williams of Williams Law Office of Delavan.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, attorney general, and Sally L. Wellman, assistant attorney general.
Before Brown, P.J., Nettesheim and Snyder, JJ.
¶ 1.
In this case, we set out the proper methodology for evaluating a guilty plea withdrawal request based on the postplea discovery of exculpatory evidence within the exclusive control of the State.
¶ 2. Following his plea of guilty, Michael R. Sturgeon was convicted of burglary as a party to the crime pursuant to §§ 943.10(1)(a) and 939.05(1), STATS. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly denied Sturgeon's request to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing. Because the State failed to provide Sturgeon with exculpatory evidence related to his confession to the police and because such failure caused Sturgeon to plead guilty, we reverse the judgment of conviction and the order denying postconviction relief. We remand for further postconviction proceedings in accord with this opinion.
¶ 3. The relevant facts, although not disputed, are somewhat lengthy. On January 13, 1997, the State filed a criminal complaint against Sturgeon, alleging burglary and misdemeanor theft as a party to the crime. The complaint was based principally upon the confessions of Sturgeon and his alleged cohorts, Andrew King and R.J.W., a juvenile. All three confessions represented that Sturgeon, R.J.W. and King went to the home of R.J.W.'s grandmother, that Sturgeon knocked on the door and asked for a fictitious person, and that while Sturgeon kept the grandmother occupied, R.J.W. entered the house and stole his grandmother's purse. As to Sturgeon's confession, the complaint alleged:
Officer Russell Carstensen of the City of Lake Geneva Police Department reports that on November 30, 1996, he spoke to Michael Sturgeon. After advising Sturgeon of his rights under the Miranda decision, Sturgeon stated that he would waive his rights and speak to the officer. Sturgeon stated that he was with R.J.W. and Andy King when they walked to the house of R.J.W.'s grandmother in the City of Lake Geneva. Sturgeon stated that it was he who knocked on the back door and asked for Jacob and kept Mrs. [W.] busy while R.J.W. and Andy King were in the front of the house. Sturgeon stated that all of a sudden, King was running away from the house and yelled at Sturgeon to run and Sturgeon ran from the back of the house and over to the Mobil Station. Sturgeon further stated that King told him that he dumped the purse and its contents in town.
¶ 4. Sturgeon was represented by Attorney David Danz. Sturgeon admitted to Danz that while he did go to the door and ask R.J.W.'s grandmother for Jacob, he did not know that Jacob was a fictitious person and he did not know that R.J.W. and King planned to steal the grandmother's purse. ¶ 5. On March 11, 1997, Sturgeon filed a Demand for Discovery and Inspection.1 This demand included a request for "[a]ny written or recorded statements made by the defendant," "[w]ritten summaries of all oral statements of the defendant," and "[a]ll exculpatory evidence." As a result, Danz examined the district attorney's file and discovered Carstensen's police report detailing Sturgeon's confession. The confession itself was not reduced to writing.
¶ 6. At the preliminary hearing, R.J.W. testified in accord with his confession, implicating Sturgeon in the planning and execution of the theft and burglary. Carstensen also testified, confirming that Sturgeon had admitted his involvement. He testified:
[Sturgeon] told me that he was supposed to go to the back door, knock on the back door and then when Mrs. [W.] came to the back door, he was supposed to ask if Jacob was home. There was no Jacob there, but he was just supposed to distract her long enough for [R.J.W.] and Andy to go to the front door.
Based on this and other evidence, Sturgeon was bound over for trial, and the State filed an information alleging the same burglary and theft charges recited in the complaint.
¶ 7. Sturgeon then filed a motion to suppress his confession, contending that his confession was not voluntary. At the hearing on this motion, City of Lake Geneva Police Chief Richard Meinel testified that he also was present during Carstensen's interview with Sturgeon. Meinel confirmed Carstensen's versions of Sturgeon's confession as represented in the criminal complaint and at the preliminary hearing. Carstensen also testified, revealing that he had questioned Sturgeon another time at school about other incidents but "nothing to do with this incident." The trial court denied Sturgeon's motion to suppress.
¶ 8. Danz then conducted plea agreement discussions with the State. He negotiated an agreement whereby Sturgeon would plead guilty to the burglary charge and the State would dismiss and read in the theft charge. In addition, the State agreed to not seek prison time. Faced with Sturgeon's confession and the incriminating testimony of R.J.W., the accomplice, Danz recommended that Sturgeon accept the proposal. Sturgeon agreed and pled guilty. The trial court withheld sentence and placed Sturgeon on probation for five years. The conditions of probation included confinement in the county jail for 120 days.
¶ 9. Represented by new counsel, Sturgeon moved to withdraw his guilty plea. In conjunction with the motion, Sturgeon sought an order directing the Lake Geneva police department to produce "any and all notes, transcripts and other materials concerning or related to any statements given by Michael S. Sturgeon to officers [of the department]." The motion stated that Sturgeon had reason to believe that his statements to the police included his exculpatory assertion that he was unaware of R.J.W. and King's plan to steal from R.J.W.'s grandmother. The State agreed to voluntarily turn over the requested materials to Sturgeon's new counsel.
¶ 10. These materials revealed a transcript of an interview of Sturgeon by Carstensen and other officers at Badger High School on December 3, 1996, three days after Carstensen's initial interview of Sturgeon.2 During this interview, the officers questioned Sturgeon about various matters under investigation. Interspersed in this conversation were questions about the instant case. During this phase of the questioning, Sturgeon stated that he received no money from the theft, "they used [him] to go to the door," and "[he] didn't have the slightest clue what was going on until the purse ended up with [them]." Explaining why this document was not included in the district attorney's file when Danz examined the file, the State indicated that "[t]he police did not forward [the transcript of this interview] to us right away because it was primarily on another case."
¶ 11. At this hearing, the assistant district attorney also revealed that she had been advised by Meinel, who was present at Carstensen's initial interrogation of Sturgeon, that Sturgeon had originally told the police during the interview that he was unaware of the criminal intentions of R.J.W. and King. The State acknowledged that this exculpatory version of Sturgeon's role in the event was not included in Carstensen's police report documenting Sturgeon's confession.
¶ 12. The trial court rejected Sturgeon's plea withdrawal motion. In support, the court cited to the plea colloquy that established Sturgeon's understanding of the intent element of burglary and his knowledge of the criminal scheme afoot. The court also alluded to Sturgeon's failure to question Carstensen or Meinel at the preliminary hearing or motion to suppress regarding his exculpatory statements. In addition, the court noted that the failure of the police to forward the report or the transcript of the Badger High School interview was understandable since "it was . . . an investigatory file that had to do with a number of pending matters." Thus, the court concluded that Sturgeon had not established a manifest necessity for withdrawal of his guilty plea.
¶ 13. After the trial court made its ruling, the case took an unusual evidentiary turn. Sturgeon's postconviction counsel asked permission to present Sturgeon's testimony. The trial court allowed an offer of proof and Sturgeon then testified under oath, stating his exculpatory version of the events. He also stated that he felt he had no choice but to plead guilty in light of R.J.W.'s incriminating testimony and the confession that he had given to Carstensen. At the conclusion of Sturgeon's offer of proof testimony, the trial court confirmed its prior ruling without further comment.
¶ 14. A motion for withdrawal of a plea is addressed to the trial court's discretion. See State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis. 2d 615, 635, 579 N.W.2d 698, 708,
cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 413 (1998). In order to sustain this discretionary decision, we must ensure that the trial court's determination was made upon the facts of record and in reliance on the appropriate and applicable law. See id.
[1, 2]
¶ 15. When a motion to withdraw a plea is made after sentencing, the defendant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. See State v. Hatcher, 83 Wis. 2d 559, 564, 266 N.W.2d 320, 323 (1978)
. Here, Sturgeon's plea withdrawal request is based upon his claim that the State violated his constitutional due process rights by failing to produce exculpatory evidence within its exclusive control. When a defendant's assertion of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
...family would be moving out of town. ¶ 6. Harris, relying on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86 (1963), and State v. Sturgeon, 231 Wis. 2d 487, 497, 605 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App. 1999), asserted that the State's failure to disclose this evidence violated his constitutional due process right to al......
-
State v. Subdiaz-Osorio
...contributed to the conviction. State v. Semrau, 2000 WI App 54, ¶ 21, 233 Wis.2d 508, 608 N.W.2d 376; State v. Sturgeon, 231 Wis.2d 487, 503–04, 605 N.W.2d 589 (Ct.App.1999). As part of this inquiry, the court considers: (1) the relative strength and weakness of the State's case and the def......
-
State v. Lock
...violation has occurred, but we accept the trial court's findings of historical fact unless clearly erroneous. State v. Sturgeon, 231 Wis.2d 487, 496, 605 N.W.2d 589 (Ct.App.1999).A. The State did not violate its Brady obligations with respect to Jackson. ¶ 95 Lock first argues that the Stat......
-
Buffey v. Ballard
...v. United States, 858 F.2d 416, 422 (8th Cir.1988); Campbell v. Marshall, 769 F.2d 314, 321 (6th Cir.1985); State v. Sturgeon, 231 Wis.2d 487, 605 N.W.2d 589, 596 (Ct.App.1999).Addressing the issue of the applicability of Brady to the disclosure of impeachment evidence during plea negotiati......
-
Early steps in the case
...161 Wis.2d 842, 469 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. DelReal, 225 Wis.2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999); State v. Sturgeon, 231 Wis.2d 487, 605 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App 1999), the due process clauses of the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. 8. All evidence of misconduct or crim......
-
Early steps in the case
...161 Wis.2d 842, 469 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. DelReal, 225 Wis.2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999); State v. Sturgeon, 231 Wis.2d 487, 605 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App 1999), the due process clauses of the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. 8. All evidence of misconduct or crim......
-
Early Steps in the Case
...161 Wis.2d 842, 469 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. DelReal, 225 Wis.2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999); State v. Sturgeon, 231 Wis.2d 487, 605 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App 1999), the due process clauses of the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. 8. All evidence of misconduct or crim......
-
Early Steps in the Case
...161 Wis.2d 842, 469 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. DelReal, 225 Wis.2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999); State v. Sturgeon, 231 Wis.2d 487, 605 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App 1999), the due process clauses of the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. 8. All evidence of misconduct or crim......