Legal Opinion

Hanson v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 5, 1971No. State 15PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

The state’s initial contention is that this court is without jurisdiction to review the action of the trial court because defendant’s motion was not timely brought. It bases this contention upon the premise that defendant’s motion was one to modify the sentence and, relying upon Hayes v. State (1970), 46 Wis. 2d 93, 175 N. W. 2d 625, asserts that such motion was required to be made within ninety days of the imposition of sentence. We construe defendant’s motion as one to withdraw a plea of guilty and find the time limit set in Pulaski v. State (1964), 23 Wis. 2d 138, 126 N. W. 2d 625, to be…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. ReppinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Ernst v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Hayes v. StatesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Pulaski v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Pillsbury v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. BarteltWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Armstrong v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Rinehart v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  4. State v. SchantekCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1984
  5. HELMS, MARLO S., PEOPLE vAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API