State v. Thomas
Citation | 605 N.W.2d 836,2000 WI 13,232 Wis.2d 714 |
Decision Date | 18 February 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 97-2665-CR.,97-2665-CR. |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Terry THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Jeffrey W. Jensen and Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Jensen, Milwaukee, and oral argument by Jeffrey W. Jensen.
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by David J. Becker, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
¶ 1.
Terry Thomas1 seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals decision,2 which affirmed a circuit court's denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea. The circuit court found that a factual basis supporting Thomas's plea had been established, and therefore denied the plea withdrawal request. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Thomas had not demonstrated the "manifest injustice" required to withdraw his guilty plea. Slip op. at 10. We agree. A factual basis supporting the plea was established, because when the record is viewed under the totality of the circumstances, it is evident that Thomas assented to the facts as stated by the assistant district attorney. Since a proper factual basis was established, the guilty plea does not result in manifest injustice.
¶ 2. In the evening of October 10, 1995, Terry Thomas (Thomas) was involved in an altercation concerning drugs. A shoot-out ensued, and Tyrone Doss, a childhood friend, died. Ultimately, Thomas pled guilty to second-degree reckless homicide while using a dangerous weapon, as a party to a crime. Wis. Stat. §§ 940.06, 939.05, 939.63(1)(a)2 (1993-94).3 The circuit court, the Honorable David A. Hansher presiding, convicted Thomas on his guilty plea, and he was sentenced to a fifteen-year prison term. After his conviction and sentencing, Thomas moved to withdraw his plea, claiming that a factual basis was not established to support it.
¶ 3. The facts leading to the guilty plea are as follows. According to Thomas's statement as set forth in the criminal complaint, he, Doss, and several other individuals met at Doss's house in Milwaukee to discuss a drug operation they were involved in. A scuffle broke out during the discussion, and Doss mumbled something about "going to war." (R. at 2:8.) Thomas and his friends then left and headed to Thomas's nearby residence.
¶ 4. A short time later, Thomas and his roommate "Shawn" walked back to Doss's house through an alley by the house. At that same time, Larry Harris, Zorris (Doss's brother), and their friend Rob, drove into the alley. Thomas was carrying an AK-47 semiautomatic rifle. Shawn carried a sawed-off, pistol-grip shotgun. When Harris got out of the car, he and Thomas were facing each other across the alley. Harris pulled a nine-millimeter handgun from the front of his waistband and pointed it at Thomas. Thomas then lifted his AK-47 and shot at Harris. Harris started running through yards, while Thomas continued to shoot in his direction. Thomas stated in the complaint that he shot at Harris to prevent Harris from shooting him.
¶ 5. The rifle, upon being fired, knocked Thomas to the ground. When he stood up, he began to walk to his own residence, but saw Shawn standing in the alley firing his sawed-off shotgun toward Doss's house. Thomas turned back and started "shooting wildly" in the same direction from behind a bush. (R. at 2:8.) He claimed he could not see what he was shooting at, but kept firing to keep anyone from shooting back at Shawn or him. Doss, who was standing outside his house, was shot in the chest. He died a few hours later.
¶ 6. Thomas was charged with second degree reckless homicide while armed and habitual criminality, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 940.06, 939.63(1)(a)2, and 939.62. However, at the plea hearing the state amended the information orally to add "party to the crime" to the charge under Wis. Stat. § 939.05, and it dismissed the habitual criminality allegation.4 Thomas pled guilty to the charge. The court then questioned Thomas directly. The following exchange occurred:
(R. at 20:8.) The court then inquired:
(R. at 20:9-11.) Later, the court questioned the defendant again:
(R. at 20:13.)
¶ 7. The state then listed the elements that it would have to prove against Thomas, and Thomas agreed he understood them. The assistant district attorney attempted to establish a factual basis for the plea by reading the factual allegations from the criminal complaint. The complaint consists of ten pages of statements from various witnesses. The court asked if there was some way to speed up the process. The state and the defense counsel proceeded to come to an understanding as to which parts of the criminal complaint they could stipulate to as a factual basis for the plea.6 Finally, the court asked:
¶ 8. At the sentencing, the assistant district attorney wanted to clarify that Thomas agreed with the defense counsel's stipulation to the facts at the plea hearing.
(R. at 21:2-3.)
¶ 9. Thomas was sentenced to 15 years in prison for the reckless homicide charge. After the conviction, Thomas moved to withdraw his guilty plea as to that charge. He argued that the plea must be withdrawn because a factual basis had not been established to support the plea, and that he had a meritorious defense. The circuit court denied the motion because it found Thomas did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that manifest injustice would occur if he could not withdraw his plea. The plea would not result in manifest injustice, the court determined, because Thomas did not state what he specifically disputed during the plea hearing. As to the meritorious defense, the court found that Thomas's actions did not meet the criteria required to sustain a privilege of self-defense and defense of others, according to Wis. Stat. § 939.48. Finally, the court found...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Von Jackson
...a plea is a matter within the circuit court's discretion, which we review under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. State v. Thomas , 2000 WI 13, ¶13, 232 Wis. 2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836. "We will sustain an exercise of discretion if the circuit court ‘examined the relevant facts, ap......
-
State v. Straszkowski
...2007 WI 74, ¶ 28 n. 8, 301 Wis.2d 418, 734 N.W.2d 23 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. State v. Thomas, 2000 WI 13, ¶ 16, 232 Wis.2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836. 15. Brown, 293 Wis.2d 594, ¶ 18, 716 N.W.2d 906. 16. Lackershire, 301 Wis.2d 418, ¶ 24, 734 N.W.2d 23.......
-
State v. Trochinski
...needed to establish by clear and convincing evidence, that failure to allow a withdrawal would result in a manifest injustice. State v. Thomas, 2000 WI 13, ¶ 16, 232 Wis. 2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836. In other words, Trochinski was required "to show `a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of......
-
State v. Harris
...has demonstrated the State's discovery statute violation resulted in "`a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea.'" State v. Thomas, 2000 WI 13, ¶ 16, 232 Wis. 2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836 (quoting State v. Nawrocke, 193 Wis. 2d 373, 379, 534 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1995)). Under these......
-
Wisconsin Court of Appeals rules fact clash voids guilty plea.
...are true, or agrees may be used for that purpose. For support, the court relied on the Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in State v. Thomas, 2000 WI 13, 232 Wis.2d 714, 605 W.W.2d The issue in Thomas was whether or not Thomas agreed to the stipulation of facts. From this, the Court of Appeals......