factual basis requirement in Wisconsin

2024“The factual basis requirement ‘protect[s] a defendant who is in the position of pleading voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the charge.’” State v. Thomas, 2000 WI 13, ¶14 , 232 Wis. 2d 714 , 605 N.W.2d 836 (alteration in original).

2024“The factual basis requirement ‘protect[s] a defendant who is in the position of pleading voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the charge.’” State v. Thomas, 2000 WI 13, ¶14 , 232 Wis. 2d 714 , 605 N.W.2d 836 (alteration in original).

2020Johnson also argues that even if the paternity court commissioner did order him to return the child to T.L.C., “[t]here is no indication in the record that Mr. Johnson was ever advised of the events of the March 1 paternity hearing or the details of any order that was issued by the court commissioner.” 3 The Harrell court determined that in the context of a plea bargain, the factual basis requirement is satisfied if there is a factual basis “either [for] the offense to which the plea is offered or [for] a more serious charge reasonably related to the offense to which the plea is offered.” Stat

2020Johnson also argues that even if the paternity court commissioner did order him to return the child to T.L.C., “[t]here is no indication in the record that Mr. Johnson was ever advised of the events of the March 1 paternity hearing or the details of any order that was issued by the court commissioner.” 3 The Harrell court determined that in the context of a plea bargain, the factual basis requirement is satisfied if there is a factual basis “either [for] the offense to which the plea is offered or [for] a more serious charge reasonably related to the offense to which the plea is offered.” Stat

2023Id., ¶5. ¶20 This court has interpreted American Girl to establish that “the circumstances giving rise to a breach of contract or breach of warranty claim may be an ‘occurrence’ within the meaning of a CGL policy: the analysis focuses on the factual basis for the claim and not on the theory of liability.” Glendenning’s Limestone & Ready-Mix Co. v. Reimer, 2006 WI App 161, ¶25 , 295 Wis. 2d 556 , 721 N.W.2d 704 ; see also 1325 N. Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Grp., Ltd., 2006 WI 94, ¶58 , 293 Wis. 2d 410 , 716 N.W.2d 822 (“We have repeatedly rejected the argument that insurance coverage is dependent up

2023Id., ¶5. ¶20 This court has interpreted American Girl to establish that “the circumstances giving rise to a breach of contract or breach of warranty claim may be an ‘occurrence’ within the meaning of a CGL policy: the analysis focuses on the factual basis for the claim and not on the theory of liability.” Glendenning’s Limestone & Ready-Mix Co. v. Reimer, 2006 WI App 161, ¶25 , 295 Wis. 2d 556 , 721 N.W.2d 704 ; see also 1325 N. Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Grp., Ltd., 2006 WI 94, ¶58 , 293 Wis. 2d 410 , 716 N.W.2d 822 (“We have repeatedly rejected the argument that insurance coverage is dependent up

2020Wis. Stat. § 971.08 (1) (2017-18).10 To accept an Alford plea, "the circuit court must determine that the summary of the evidence the [S]tate would offer at trial constitutes 'strong proof of guilt.'" Warren, 219 Wis. 2d at 645 (citing Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d at 859-60 ). "'Strong proof of guilt' is not the equivalent of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is 'clearly greater than what is needed to meet the factual basis requirement under a guilty plea.'" Warren, 219 Wis. 2d at 645 (quoting Smith, 202 Wis. 2d at 27 ).

2020Wis. Stat. § 971.08 (1) (2017-18).10 To accept an Alford plea, "the circuit court must determine that the summary of the evidence the [S]tate would offer at trial constitutes 'strong proof of guilt.'" Warren, 219 Wis. 2d at 645 (citing Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d at 859-60 ). "'Strong proof of guilt' is not the equivalent of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is 'clearly greater than what is needed to meet the factual basis requirement under a guilty plea.'" Warren, 219 Wis. 2d at 645 (quoting Smith, 202 Wis. 2d at 27 ).

2022Brueggeman v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 227 Wis. 2d 531, 555 , 597 N.W.2d 744 (1999), for the proposition that JT Klein’s counsel “do[es] not have an unfettered right to rely on … client statements for the factual basis of a claim.” Acquisition argues that, had counsel for JT Klein adequately investigated Jacob Klein’s assertions before filing suit, counsel would have discovered that aspects of his testimony were “easily refutable” and based on assertions that would have “never checked out.” However, the substance of this Jandrt-based argument appears to be only the following: with adequate investig

2022Brueggeman v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 227 Wis. 2d 531, 555 , 597 N.W.2d 744 (1999), for the proposition that JT Klein’s counsel “do[es] not have an unfettered right to rely on … client statements for the factual basis of a claim.” Acquisition argues that, had counsel for JT Klein adequately investigated Jacob Klein’s assertions before filing suit, counsel would have discovered that aspects of his testimony were “easily refutable” and based on assertions that would have “never checked out.” However, the substance of this Jandrt-based argument appears to be only the following: with adequate investig

2020Wis. Stat. § 971.08 (1) (2017-18).10 To accept an Alford plea, "the circuit court must determine that the summary of the evidence the [S]tate would offer at trial constitutes 'strong proof of guilt.'" Warren, 219 Wis. 2d at 645 (citing Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d at 859-60 ). "'Strong proof of guilt' is not the equivalent of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is 'clearly greater than what is needed to meet the factual basis requirement under a guilty plea.'" Warren, 219 Wis. 2d at 645 (quoting Smith, 202 Wis. 2d at 27 ).

2020Wis. Stat. § 971.08 (1) (2017-18).10 To accept an Alford plea, "the circuit court must determine that the summary of the evidence the [S]tate would offer at trial constitutes 'strong proof of guilt.'" Warren, 219 Wis. 2d at 645 (citing Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d at 859-60 ). "'Strong proof of guilt' is not the equivalent of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is 'clearly greater than what is needed to meet the factual basis requirement under a guilty plea.'" Warren, 219 Wis. 2d at 645 (quoting Smith, 202 Wis. 2d at 27 ).

2016Although strong proof of guilt is less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Spears, 147 Wis. 2d 429, 435 , 433 N.W.2d 595 (Ct. App. 1988), it is clearly greater than what is needed to meet the factual basis requirement under a guilty plea.

2016Although strong proof of guilt is less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Spears, 147 Wis. 2d 429, 435 , 433 N.W.2d 595 (Ct. App. 1988), it is clearly greater than what is needed to meet the factual basis requirement under a guilty plea.

1996In Johnson, 105 Wis. 2d at 663 , the court of appeals recognized the difficulty posed by an Alford plea in relation to the factual basis requirement and held that when an Alford plea was entered, the factual basis requirement could only be fulfilled if there was a showing of "strong proof of guilt" by the state that the defendant committed the crime to which he or she pled.

1996In Johnson, 105 Wis. 2d at 663 , the court of appeals recognized the difficulty posed by an Alford plea in relation to the factual basis requirement and held that when an Alford plea was entered, the factual basis requirement could only be fulfilled if there was a showing of "strong proof of guilt" by the state that the defendant committed the crime to which he or she pled.

2024As “counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance,” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690 , counsel is presumed to have researched the factual basis for the offenses La Brec was charged with and understood Harrell’s application.

2024Because the factual basis requirement is satisfied, La Brec has failed to show a manifest injustice occurred, and he is therefore not entitled to withdraw his plea on that basis.7 6 “[A]n offense is a ‘lesser included’ one only if all of its statutory elements can be demonstrated without proof of any fact or element in addition to those which must be proved for the ‘greater’ offense.” State v. Carrington, 134 Wis. 2d 260, 265 , 397 N.W.2d 484 (1986) (alteration in original; citation omitted); see also State v. Smits, 2001 WI App 45, ¶7 , 241 Wis. 2d 374 , 626 N.W.2d 42 (“Under the Blockburger

2024Because the factual basis requirement is satisfied, La Brec has failed to show a manifest injustice occurred, and he is therefore not entitled to withdraw his plea on that basis.7 6 “[A]n offense is a ‘lesser included’ one only if all of its statutory elements can be demonstrated without proof of any fact or element in addition to those which must be proved for the ‘greater’ offense.” State v. Carrington, 134 Wis. 2d 260, 265 , 397 N.W.2d 484 (1986) (alteration in original; citation omitted); see also State v. Smits, 2001 WI App 45, ¶7 , 241 Wis. 2d 374 , 626 N.W.2d 42 (“Under the Blockburger

2023Moya, 375 Wis. 2d 38, ¶7 . ¶32 As the factual basis for its waiver argument, SSM states the following.

2014Thus, that property damage "is actionable in contract but not tort does not make it 'non-accidental' or otherwise remove it from the CGL's definition of "occurrence.'" American Girl, 268 Wis. 2d 16, ¶ 6 . "[T]he circumstances giving rise to a breach of contract or breach of warranty claim may be an 'occurrence' within the meaning of a CGL policy: the analysis focuses on the factual basis for the claim and not on the theory of liability." Glendenning's Limestone & Ready-Mix Co. v. Reimer, 2006 WI App 161, ¶ 25 , 295 Wis. 2d 556 , 721 N.W.2d 704 .

2007Radcliffe, reserve judge of the Circuit Court for Pepin County, presided over the plea hearing. [7] This court explained the procedure for read-in charges in Austin v. State, 49 Wis.2d 727 , 183 N.W.2d 56 (1971).

2007Radcliffe, reserve judge of the Circuit Court for Pepin County, presided over the plea hearing. [7] This court explained the procedure for read-in charges in Austin v. State, 49 Wis.2d 727 , 183 N.W.2d 56 (1971).

2007To satisfy the factual basis requirement, a judge must "determine to the court's satisfaction that the facts, if proved, 'constitute the offense charged and whether the defendant's conduct does not amount to a defense!'" Morones v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 544, 552 , 213 N.W.2d 31 (1973) (quoting Edwards v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 231, 236 , 186 N.W.2d 193 (1971)).

2007To satisfy the factual basis requirement, a judge must "determine to the court's satisfaction that the facts, if proved, 'constitute the offense charged and whether the defendant's conduct does not amount to a defense!'" Morones v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 544, 552 , 213 N.W.2d 31 (1973) (quoting Edwards v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 231, 236 , 186 N.W.2d 193 (1971)).

2007To satisfy the factual basis requirement, a judge must "determine to the court's satisfaction that the facts, if proved, `constitute the offense charged and whether the defendant's conduct does not amount to a defense.'" Morones v. State, 61 Wis.2d 544, 552 , 213 N.W.2d 31 (1973) (quoting Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231, 236 , 186 N.W.2d 193 (1971)). [2] In State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100 , 293 Wis.2d 594 , 716 N.W.2d 906 , the court provided the following list of duties a circuit court judge has during a plea hearing: (1) Determine the extent of the defendant's education and general comprehension

2007To satisfy the factual basis requirement, a judge must "determine to the court's satisfaction that the facts, if proved, `constitute the offense charged and whether the defendant's conduct does not amount to a defense.'" Morones v. State, 61 Wis.2d 544, 552 , 213 N.W.2d 31 (1973) (quoting Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231, 236 , 186 N.W.2d 193 (1971)). [2] In State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100 , 293 Wis.2d 594 , 716 N.W.2d 906 , the court provided the following list of duties a circuit court judge has during a plea hearing: (1) Determine the extent of the defendant's education and general comprehension

2007To satisfy the factual basis requirement, a judge must "determine to the court's satisfaction that the facts, if proved, 'constitute the offense charged and whether the defendant's conduct does not amount to a defense!'" Morones v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 544, 552 , 213 N.W.2d 31 (1973) (quoting Edwards v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 231, 236 , 186 N.W.2d 193 (1971)).

2007To satisfy the factual basis requirement, a judge must "determine to the court's satisfaction that the facts, if proved, 'constitute the offense charged and whether the defendant's conduct does not amount to a defense!'" Morones v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 544, 552 , 213 N.W.2d 31 (1973) (quoting Edwards v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 231, 236 , 186 N.W.2d 193 (1971)).