Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

160 Wis. 252

Foster v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1915

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1915-03-02

<p> Criminal law and practice: Plea of guilty by person committed for trial: Jurisdiction: Sentence: Modification: Discretion. </p> <p>1. At his own. request, though, not in writing, an accused person who had been committed for trial at the next term of the circuit court, appeared before the court with counsel, was arraigned, and pleaded guilty. Afterwards, without objection, evidence was taken to enable the court to determine the proper judgment, and sentence was pronounced. Held, that the court had full jurisdiction of the matter and there was no irregularity.</p> <p>2. After pleading guilty as above stated and being sentenced to imprisonment, the accused, upon an affidavit that he had been induced to plead guilty by a promise which he supposed came from the district attorney that he would be punished by fine only, and that he was innocent of the offense, applied to have the judgment changed to a fine, or for a new trial. The district .attorney deposed that he had made no promise directly or indirectly and that the plea of guilty was wholly voluntary. Held, that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the application.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1930

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1915-03-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MaRshall, J.

¶1There was not even an irregularity in the action of the court, with the accused before it at his own request and represented by counsel, accepting his plea of guilty upon his being in due form arraigned on the charge made against him. The fact that he had been committed for trial, in form, at the next term of the circuit court, instead of before the circuit court made no difference. Upon his appearing at his own request and having the advice of counsel, the court had possession of the whole matter.

¶2It seems that the application for a change of the judgment or for a new trial was in the nature of a plea for favor rather than the demand of a right. Notwithstanding the general statement in the affidavit of the accused that he was not guilty of the offense charged, the primary request for a mere change of the judgment involved a confession of guilt. In face of the affidavit of the district attorney that the plea of guilty was wholly voluntary, there is no basis for a decision that the court abused its discretion.

¶3By the Court. — The judgment is affirmed.

/160/wis/252 · .json · Public domain