(Download) "State V. Ramirez" by State of Wisconsin in Court of Appeals District I ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State V. Ramirez
- Author : State of Wisconsin in Court of Appeals District I
- Release Date : January 27, 2006
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
¶1 Luis A. Ramirez appeals pro se the order denying his post-conviction motion seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of armed robbery, as a party to the crime, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 943.32(2) and 939.05 (1997-98).*fn1 Ramirez argues that he established a manifest injustice and he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because: (1) the trial court failed to follow the dictates of WIS. STAT.§ 971.08 when it never personally addressed him at the guilty plea proceeding and ascertained that he understood the elements of the crime of armed robbery and the operation of the party to a crime statute; (2) the trial court failed to advise him that the court "was not bound by the plea agreement"; and (3) the State violated the plea agreement during its sentencing argument by mentioning uncharged offenses. We determine that although the guilty plea proceeding did not strictly comply with the dictates of § 971.08, Ramirez has not stated what elements of the charge of armed robbery he did not understand or what information about the operation of the party to a crime statute he did not know; thus, on this basis, he has not met his burden of establishing a manifest injustice. Further, while the court failed to advise him personally that the court was free to disregard the plea negotiations, the guilty plea questionnaire that Ramirez signed and claimed he understood did state that the trial court need not follow the plea negotiations and, more importantly, he has not claimed that he believed otherwise. Finally, our review of the record supports the State's contention that the prosecutor did not violate the terms of the plea negotiations by mentioning uncharged offenses in his sentencing argument. Consequently, we affirm.