Court tells prosecutors to stick to the facts.

• Date: 09 January 2002
• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

Where a prosecutor suggests that she has changed her mind about the wisdom of a plea agreement, she commits a substantial and material breach of the agreement, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held on Jan. 3.

Facts and Procedure

John D. Williams was charged with two felony counts of failure to pay child support. He entered into a plea agreement with the State under which he would plead guilty to one count and pay all arrearages and current support. In exchange, the State would dismiss the second count and recommend that he serve 60 days in the county jail as a condition of three years probation.

Ozaukee County Circuit Court Judge Thomas R. Wolfgram accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation (PSI). The PSI writer recommended a medium term of imprisonment.

During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor made a number of comments suggesting that the PSI had changed her view of the matter. After emphasizing twice that the PSI writer believes that Williams needs to go to prison, Williams attorney objected that the agreement was being breached.

The court did not rule on the objection, and the prosecutor stated she was not changing her recommendation, but was only relaying information. Judge Wolfgram sentenced Williams to 18 months in prison, and Williams appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed in a published decision, State v. Williams, 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164 (Ct.App. 2000). The Supreme Court...