40 Wis. 2d 666 - LeFebre v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2013
14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Kercheval v. United States · State v. Reppin · 27 Wis. 2d 623 - State v. Strickland · Pulaski v. State · 32 Wis. 2d 60 - State v. Koerner
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . This burden is the clear and convincing evidence test and such burden is in accord with the rule in other jurisdictions.” State v. Reppin, supra, at page 385. “. . . If it is going to be permissible to withdraw a guilty plea because a plea agreement was violated, the first element which the accused should have to prove is that a plea agreement was actually made.” LeFebre v. State (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 666, 672 , 162 N. W. 2d 544 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘If the defendant entered the plea of guilty with the hope and expectation or belief that either the punishment to which he might be exposed would be mitigated and the out-of-county charges would also be consolidated so he could also plead guilty to them, those hopes, expectations, or beliefs, even though induced by his counsel or others, or as a consequence of misinterpretation of things said to him, normally would not constitute a ground for the exercise of the discretion necessary to permit the plea of guilty to be withdrawn. . . . The defendant has shown no deal was made to consolidate all charges against him in exchange for his plea of guilty and co-operation.’ Pulaski v. State, supra, at pages 147 and 148.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““What this case does turn on is the interpretation given to the American Bar Association standard quoted earlier: “ ‘ (4) he did not receive the charge or sentence concessions contemplated by the plea agreement and the prosecuting attorney failed to seek or not to oppose these concessions as promised in the plea agreement.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.