manifest injustice test (Wisconsin) · Go Syfert
← Wisconsin issues

manifest injustice test in Wisconsin

54 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2025 16 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (30)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Thomasgreen
wis · 2000 · cited in 10 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2004–2023
2 sentences

2023The manifest injustice standard requires the defendant to show “a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea.” Id. (citation omitted).

2021The manifest injustice standard requires the defendant to show “a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea.” Id. (citation omitted). ¶5 One way for a defendant to meet this burden is to show that he or she did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter the plea.

310
State v. Reppingreen
wis · 1967 · cited in 9 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1969–2013
2 sentences

2013In this case, the State argues that the manifest injustice test under Reppin governs whether Taylor should be allowed to withdraw his plea. 18 State v. Reppin, 35 Wis. 2d 377, 381 , 151 N.W.2d 9 (1967).

2013In this case, the State argues that the manifest injustice test under Reppin governs whether Taylor should be allowed to withdraw his plea. 18 State v. Reppin, 35 Wis. 2d 377, 381 , 151 N.W.2d 9 (1967).

29
State v. Bangertgreen
wis · 1986 · cited in 4 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2012–2021
2 sentences

2021The same “manifest injustice” test applies, State v. Negrete, 2012 WI 92, ¶16 , 343 Wis. 2d 1 , 819 N.W.2d 749 , and ineffective assistance of counsel can satisfy the manifest injustice test, State v. Hudson, 2013 WI App 120, ¶11 , 351 Wis. 2d 73 , 839 N.W.2d 147 . 3 State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 , 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). 5 No. 2019AP1880-CR ¶12 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial.

2021The same “manifest injustice” test applies, State v. Negrete, 2012 WI 92, ¶16 , 343 Wis. 2d 1 , 819 N.W.2d 749 , and ineffective assistance of counsel can satisfy the manifest injustice test, State v. Hudson, 2013 WI App 120, ¶11 , 351 Wis. 2d 73 , 839 N.W.2d 147 . 3 State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 , 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). 5 No. 2019AP1880-CR ¶12 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial.

24
White v. Stategreen
wis · 1978 · cited in 4 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2008–2021
2 sentences

2021We need not settle this point, however, because 7 The State correctly recites the general rule that, “when applying the manifest injustice test, ‘a reviewing court may look beyond the plea hearing transcript’ to the totality of the circumstances,” including “the plea hearing record, the sentencing hearing record [and] other portions of the record.” State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68, ¶¶29-31 , 342 Wis. 2d 1 , 816 N.W.2d 177 (citations omitted); see also White v. State, 85 Wis. 2d 485, 491 , 271 N.W.2d 97 (1978) (in evaluating whether the plea lacks a factual basis, “this court may consider the whole re

2021We need not settle this point, however, because 7 The State correctly recites the general rule that, “when applying the manifest injustice test, ‘a reviewing court may look beyond the plea hearing transcript’ to the totality of the circumstances,” including “the plea hearing record, the sentencing hearing record [and] other portions of the record.” State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68, ¶¶29-31 , 342 Wis. 2d 1 , 816 N.W.2d 177 (citations omitted); see also White v. State, 85 Wis. 2d 485, 491 , 271 N.W.2d 97 (1978) (in evaluating whether the plea lacks a factual basis, “this court may consider the whole re

24
State v. Pettitgreen
wisctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992). 7 Nichols relies on the dissent in Tesco American, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., 221 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2006) (Hecht, J., dissenting), to support his position that the “City of Marinette” is a law firm.

2024See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992). 7 Nichols relies on the dissent in Tesco American, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., 221 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2006) (Hecht, J., dissenting), to support his position that the “City of Marinette” is a law firm.

22
State v. Daleygreen
wisctapp · 2006 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024See State v. Daley, 2006 WI App 81, ¶18 , 292 Wis. 2d 517 , 716 N.W.2d 146 .

2024See State v. Daley, 2006 WI App 81, ¶18 , 292 Wis. 2d 517 , 716 N.W.2d 146 .

22
State v. McCallumgreen
wis · 1997 · cited in 7 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1999–2025
2 sentences

2025Plea withdrawal under the manifest injustice standard “rests in the circuit court’s discretion.” McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d at 473 . ¶19 For newly-discovered evidence to constitute a manifest injustice, several criteria must be met.

2025“The withdrawal of a plea under the manifest injustice standard rests in the circuit court’s discretion,” and “[w]e will only reverse if the circuit court has failed to properly exercise its discretion.” Id. ¶16 In some cases, newly discovered evidence may be sufficient to establish a manifest injustice entitling a defendant to plea withdrawal.

17
State v. Caingreen
wis · 2012 · cited in 7 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2024
2 sentences

2024A defendant can meet the manifest injustice standard by showing that he or she “did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter the plea,” id. (citation omitted), that his or her counsel was ineffective, State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68, ¶26 , 342 Wis. 2d 1 , 816 N.W.2d 177 , or that newly discovered evidence exists, State v. Ferguson, 2014 WI App 48, ¶24 , 354 Wis. 2d 253 , 847 N.W.2d 900 .3 A. Knowing, intelligent, and voluntary—maximum sentence ¶10 Voss’s postconviction motion alleged that his pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the circuit court failed

2024A defendant can meet the manifest injustice standard by showing that he or she “did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter the plea,” id. (citation omitted), that his or her counsel was ineffective, State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68, ¶26 , 342 Wis. 2d 1 , 816 N.W.2d 177 , or that newly discovered evidence exists, State v. Ferguson, 2014 WI App 48, ¶24 , 354 Wis. 2d 253 , 847 N.W.2d 900 .3 A. Knowing, intelligent, and voluntary—maximum sentence ¶10 Voss’s postconviction motion alleged that his pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the circuit court failed

17
State v. Nawrockegreen
wisctapp · 1995 · cited in 5 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1997–2024
2 sentences

2024The manifest injustice standard requires a “showing of a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea,” State v. Nawrocke, 193 Wis. 2d 373, 379 , 534 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1995), and “sets a high bar for overcoming waiver,” Abbott, 392 Wis. 2d 232, ¶39 .

2024The manifest injustice standard requires a “showing of a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea,” State v. Nawrocke, 193 Wis. 2d 373, 379 , 534 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1995), and “sets a high bar for overcoming waiver,” Abbott, 392 Wis. 2d 232, ¶39 .

15
State v. Bentleygreen
wis · 1996 · cited in 4 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2006–2021
2 sentences

2021Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 311 . “[W]hen applying the manifest injustice test, ‘a reviewing court may look beyond the plea hearing transcript’ to the totality of the circumstances.” 19 No. 2019AP2383-CR State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68, ¶31 , 342 Wis. 2d 1 , 816 N.W.2d 177 (citation omitted).

2020See State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 311 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996).5 A defendant has the burden of proving a manifest injustice by clear and convincing evidence.

14
State v. Washingtongreen
wisctapp · 1993 · cited in 3 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2004–2020
2 sentences

2020The manifest injustice test requires a defendant to show “‘a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea.’” Id. (quoting State v. Nawrocke, 193 Wis. 2d 373, 379 , 534 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1995)). “[I]f a circuit court fails to establish a factual basis that the defendant admits constitutes the offense pleaded to, manifest injustice has occurred.” Id., ¶17 (citing White v. State, 85 Wis. 2d 485, 488 , 271 N.W.2d 97 (1978)).

2013See State v. Washington, 176 Wis. 2d 205 , 213-214, 500 N.W.2d 331 , 335 (Ct. App. 1993).

13
State v. Gerald D. Taylorgreen
wis · 2013 · cited in 3 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2014–2020
2 sentences

2020In State v. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, ¶¶43-47 , 347 Wis. 2d 30 , 829 17 No. 2019AP21-CR N.W.2d 482, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that the manifest injustice standard applies when a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea based on an error in the plea colloquy.

2020In State v. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, ¶¶43-47 , 347 Wis. 2d 30 , 829 17 No. 2019AP21-CR N.W.2d 482, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that the manifest injustice standard applies when a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea based on an error in the plea colloquy.

13
Libke v. Stategreen
wis · 1973 · cited in 3 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1999–2014
2 sentences

2014See, for example, the American Bar Association's 1999 1 State v. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, ¶71 , 347 Wis. 2d 30 , 829 N.W.2d 482 (Prosser, J., concurring). 2 American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty § 2.1(b) (Approved Draft 1968); Libke v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 121, 128-29 , 208 N.W.2d 331 (1973) (rejecting the manifest injustice standard in favor of the "fair and just reason" standard based on the 1967 ABA standards). 2 No. 2011AP2733-CR.ssa revised criminal justice standards,3 the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,4 the Uniform Rules o

2014See, for example, the American Bar Association's 1999 1 State v. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, ¶71 , 347 Wis. 2d 30 , 829 N.W.2d 482 (Prosser, J., concurring). 2 American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty § 2.1(b) (Approved Draft 1968); Libke v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 121, 128-29 , 208 N.W.2d 331 (1973) (rejecting the manifest injustice standard in favor of the "fair and just reason" standard based on the 1967 ABA standards). 2 No. 2011AP2733-CR.ssa revised criminal justice standards,3 the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,4 the Uniform Rules o

13
State v. Boothgreen
wisctapp · 1987 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1995–2007
2 sentences

2007The manifest injustice test requires a defendant to show "a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea," id. (citations omitted), not simply disappointment with the sentence imposed, see State v. Booth, 142 Wis. 2d 232, 237 , 418 N.W.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1987).

2007The manifest injustice test requires a defendant to show "a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea," id. (citations omitted), not simply disappointment with the sentence imposed, see State v. Booth, 142 Wis. 2d 232, 237 , 418 N.W.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1987).

12
Tesco American, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc.green
tex · 2006 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992). 7 Nichols relies on the dissent in Tesco American, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., 221 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2006) (Hecht, J., dissenting), to support his position that the “City of Marinette” is a law firm.

11
State v. Ndinagreen
wis · 2009 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024See State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶29 , 315 Wis. 2d 653 , 761 N.W.2d 612 (explaining the difference between forfeiture and waiver).

2024See State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶29 , 315 Wis. 2d 653 , 761 N.W.2d 612 (explaining the difference between forfeiture and waiver).

11
State v. Christopher Joseph Allengreen
wis · 2017 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022See Allen, 373 Wis. 2d 98, ¶46 . ¶27 Because Viezbicke failed to establish ineffective assistance, he cannot satisfy the manifest injustice standard, and he is not entitled to plea withdrawal.

11
State v. Myron C. Dillardgreen
wis · 2014 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021See generally State v. Dillard, 2014 WI 123, ¶84 , 358 Wis. 2d 543 , 859 N.W.2d 44 (discussing plea withdrawal based on ineffective assistance of counsel under the manifest injustice standard).

2021See generally State v. Dillard, 2014 WI 123, ¶84 , 358 Wis. 2d 543 , 859 N.W.2d 44 (discussing plea withdrawal based on ineffective assistance of counsel under the manifest injustice standard).

11
State v. Stewartgreen
wisctapp · 2018 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
11
State v. Armstronggreen
wis · 1999 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Compare Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d at 369 (articulating the standard as asking “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction”) (emphasis added) with State v. Hale, 2005 WI 7, ¶60 , 277 Wis. 2d 593 , 691 N.W.2d 637 (articulating the standard as whether the State has “prove[n] beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained”) (emphasis added, internal quotations omitted).

11
State v. Riekkoffgreen
wis · 1983 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020See State v. Riekkoff, 112 Wis. 2d 119, 123-25 , 332 N.W.2d 744 (1983).

2020See State v. Riekkoff, 112 Wis. 2d 119, 123-25 , 332 N.W.2d 744 (1983).

11
In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cookgreen
wis · 1997 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
11
State v. Halegreen
wis · 2005 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
11
Nelson v. Stategreen
wis · 1972 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
11
State v. Lichtygreen
wisctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
11
State v. Hamptongreen
wis · 2004 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
11
State v. Hoppegreen
wis · 2009 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
11
State v. Lackershiregreen
wis · 2007 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
11
State v. Shegrudgreen
wis · 1986 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
11
State v. Spearsgreen
wisctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (22)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Brown green
wis · 2006
2 sentences

2021State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶18 , 293 Wis. 2d 594 , 716 N.W.2d 906 .

2021State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶18 , 293 Wis. 2d 594 , 716 N.W.2d 906 .

32016–2021
State v. Ferguson green
wisctapp · 2014
2 sentences

2024A defendant can meet the manifest injustice standard by showing that he or she “did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter the plea,” id. (citation omitted), that his or her counsel was ineffective, State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68, ¶26 , 342 Wis. 2d 1 , 816 N.W.2d 177 , or that newly discovered evidence exists, State v. Ferguson, 2014 WI App 48, ¶24 , 354 Wis. 2d 253 , 847 N.W.2d 900 .3 A. Knowing, intelligent, and voluntary—maximum sentence ¶10 Voss’s postconviction motion alleged that his pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the circuit court failed

2024A defendant can meet the manifest injustice standard by showing that he or she “did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter the plea,” id. (citation omitted), that his or her counsel was ineffective, State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68, ¶26 , 342 Wis. 2d 1 , 816 N.W.2d 177 , or that newly discovered evidence exists, State v. Ferguson, 2014 WI App 48, ¶24 , 354 Wis. 2d 253 , 847 N.W.2d 900 .3 A. Knowing, intelligent, and voluntary—maximum sentence ¶10 Voss’s postconviction motion alleged that his pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the circuit court failed

22022–2024
State v. Negrete green
wis · 2012
2 sentences

2021The same “manifest injustice” test applies, State v. Negrete, 2012 WI 92, ¶16 , 343 Wis. 2d 1 , 819 N.W.2d 749 , and ineffective assistance of counsel can satisfy the manifest injustice test, State v. Hudson, 2013 WI App 120, ¶11 , 351 Wis. 2d 73 , 839 N.W.2d 147 . 3 State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 , 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). 5 No. 2019AP1880-CR ¶12 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial.

2021The same “manifest injustice” test applies, State v. Negrete, 2012 WI 92, ¶16 , 343 Wis. 2d 1 , 819 N.W.2d 749 , and ineffective assistance of counsel can satisfy the manifest injustice test, State v. Hudson, 2013 WI App 120, ¶11 , 351 Wis. 2d 73 , 839 N.W.2d 147 . 3 State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 , 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). 5 No. 2019AP1880-CR ¶12 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial.

22018–2021
State v. Hudson green
wisctapp · 2013
2 sentences

2021The same “manifest injustice” test applies, State v. Negrete, 2012 WI 92, ¶16 , 343 Wis. 2d 1 , 819 N.W.2d 749 , and ineffective assistance of counsel can satisfy the manifest injustice test, State v. Hudson, 2013 WI App 120, ¶11 , 351 Wis. 2d 73 , 839 N.W.2d 147 . 3 State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 , 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). 5 No. 2019AP1880-CR ¶12 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial.

2021The same “manifest injustice” test applies, State v. Negrete, 2012 WI 92, ¶16 , 343 Wis. 2d 1 , 819 N.W.2d 749 , and ineffective assistance of counsel can satisfy the manifest injustice test, State v. Hudson, 2013 WI App 120, ¶11 , 351 Wis. 2d 73 , 839 N.W.2d 147 . 3 State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 , 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). 5 No. 2019AP1880-CR ¶12 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial.

22018–2021
State v. Krieger green
wisctapp · 1991
2 sentences

2013State v. Krieger, 163 Wis. 2d 241 , 251 n.6, 471 N.W.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1991) (citing ABA Standards for Criminal Justice sec. 14- 31 No. 2011AP1030-CR 2.1(b)(ii)(A)——(F) (2d ed. 1980 & Supp. 1986)).17 "The reviewing court looks at the entirety of the record to determine whether, considered as a whole, the record supports the assertion that manifest injustice will occur if the plea is not withdrawn." Cain, 342 Wis. 2d 1, ¶31 . ¶50 In this case, the State argues that the manifest injustice test under Reppin governs whether Taylor should be allowed to withdraw his plea.18 State v. Reppin, 35 Wis. 2

2013State v. Krieger, 163 Wis. 2d 241 , 251 n.6, 471 N.W.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1991) (citing ABA Standards for Criminal Justice sec. 14- 31 No. 2011AP1030-CR 2.1(b)(ii)(A)——(F) (2d ed. 1980 & Supp. 1986)).17 "The reviewing court looks at the entirety of the record to determine whether, considered as a whole, the record supports the assertion that manifest injustice will occur if the plea is not withdrawn." Cain, 342 Wis. 2d 1, ¶31 . ¶50 In this case, the State argues that the manifest injustice test under Reppin governs whether Taylor should be allowed to withdraw his plea.18 State v. Reppin, 35 Wis. 2

21997–2013
In Re the Termination of Parental Rights to Marquette S. green
wis · 2007
2 sentences

2024A TPR proceeding involves the competing interests “of the biological parent in his or her relationship with the child, those of the child in permanence and stability in familial relationships, and those of the State in securing efficient and speedy 7 This court received a brief opposing S.A.J.’s appeal from K.M.J.’s guardian ad litem. 10 No. 2022AP2085 resolution of termination of parental rights proceedings.” State v. Bobby G., 2007 WI 77, ¶60 , 301 Wis. 2d 531 , 734 N.W.2d 81 .

2024A TPR proceeding involves the competing interests “of the biological parent in his or her relationship with the child, those of the child in permanence and stability in familial relationships, and those of the State in securing efficient and speedy 7 This court received a brief opposing S.A.J.’s appeal from K.M.J.’s guardian ad litem. 10 No. 2022AP2085 resolution of termination of parental rights proceedings.” State v. Bobby G., 2007 WI 77, ¶60 , 301 Wis. 2d 531 , 734 N.W.2d 81 .

12024–2024
State v. Keith M. Abbott green
wisctapp · 2020
2 sentences

2024The manifest injustice standard requires a “showing of a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea,” State v. Nawrocke, 193 Wis. 2d 373, 379 , 534 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1995), and “sets a high bar for overcoming waiver,” Abbott, 392 Wis. 2d 232, ¶39 .

2024Further, at the subsequent plea hearing, S.A.J. testified that she was satisfied with trial counsel’s representation.11 In any event, S.A.J.’s burden is to meet the manifest injustice standard by “clear and convincing evidence.” Abbott, 392 Wis. 2d 232, ¶39 .

12024–2024
State v. Richard J. Sulla green
wis · 2016
2 sentences

2024A defendant can meet the manifest injustice standard by showing that he or she “did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter the plea,” id. (citation omitted), that his or her counsel was ineffective, State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68, ¶26 , 342 Wis. 2d 1 , 816 N.W.2d 177 , or that newly discovered evidence exists, State v. Ferguson, 2014 WI App 48, ¶24 , 354 Wis. 2d 253 , 847 N.W.2d 900 .3 A. Knowing, intelligent, and voluntary—maximum sentence ¶10 Voss’s postconviction motion alleged that his pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the circuit court failed

2024The court relied on the plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form to advise Voss of the potential punishment he could face for his pleas, 3 “Two legal paths are available to a defendant who seeks to withdraw his [or her] plea after sentencing.” State v. Sulla, 2016 WI 46, ¶25 , 369 Wis. 2d 225 , 880 N.W.2d 659 .

12024–2024
State v. Jones green
wis · 2010
2 sentences

2021We therefore review “the entirety of the record to determine whether, considered as a whole, the record supports the assertion that manifest injustice will occur if the plea is not withdrawn.” Id. ¶37 “Whether trial counsel should be relieved and a new attorney appointed is a matter within the circuit court’s discretion.” State v. Jones, 2010 WI 72, ¶23 , 326 Wis. 2d 380 , 797 N.W.2d 378 .

2021We therefore review “the entirety of the record to determine whether, considered as a whole, the record supports the assertion that manifest injustice will occur if the plea is not withdrawn.” Id. ¶37 “Whether trial counsel should be relieved and a new attorney appointed is a matter within the circuit court’s discretion.” State v. Jones, 2010 WI 72, ¶23 , 326 Wis. 2d 380 , 797 N.W.2d 378 .

12021–2021
State v. Jeannie M. P. green
wisctapp · 2005
2 sentences

2021State v. Jeannie M.P., 2005 WI App 183, ¶6 , 286 Wis. 2d 721 , 703 N.W.2d 694 .

2021State v. Jeannie M.P., 2005 WI App 183, ¶6 , 286 Wis. 2d 721 , 703 N.W.2d 694 .

12021–2021
State v. Peralta green
wisctapp · 2011
12018–2018
State v. Howell green
wis · 2007
12018–2018
State Ex Rel. Warren v. Schwarz green
wis · 1998
12018–2018
State v. Cross green
wis · 2010
12016–2016
State v. Jenkins green
wis · 2007
12013–2013
State v. Shimek green
wisctapp · 1999
12007–2007
State v. Kivioja green
wis · 1999
12007–2007
Berry v. State green
ga · 1851
11997–1997
Creighbaum v. State neutral
wis · 1967
11978–1978
Robinson v. California green
scotus · 1962
11973–1973
Brisk v. State green
wis · 1969
11970–1970
Ernst v. State green
wis · 1969
11970–1970

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (25) WI § Wis. Stat. § 971.08 (20) WI § Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (9) WI § Wis. Stat. § 939.50 (7) WI § Wis. Stat. § 940.225 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 941.30 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 752.31 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 805.17 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 939.62 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 948.02 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 940.30 (3) WI § Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 129 (1997–2026) WI 54 (1969–2025) MN 47 (1968–2026) FL 33 (1938–2024) KS 32 (1992–2026) UT 28 (1991–2023) PA 24 (1989–2025) TN 23 (1997–2024) NJ 22 (1997–2025) MO 20 (1979–2025) WA 19 (1983–2026) KY 18 (1991–2025) VA 15 (2004–2026) DC 8 (1984–2024) HI 5 (1957–2025) CA 5 (2009–2025) MI 4 (1982–1996) GA 4 (1996–2024) AL 3 (1916–2010) AK 3 (1983–1986) WV 3 (1995–2021) WY 3 (1979–2017) DE 2 (1986–2016) ID 2 (2013–2025) IL 2 (2020–2021) ND 2 (2000–2018) TX 2 (2015–2022) OR 2 (2025–2025) CO 2 (2001–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check