Legal Opinion

State v. Liukonen

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided July 22, 2004No. 03-1539-CRPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLundsten, J.

¶ 1. Jesse Liukonen asserts that he is entitled to resentencing before a new judge because the prosecutor breached the plea agreement during the sentencing hearing by, in effect, asking the sentencing judge to impose a harsher sentence than the one the prosecutor agreed to recommend. We agree with Liukonen that the prosecutor breached the plea agreement and agree that remand is necessary. We do not, however, order resentencing, but rather remand for further proceedings on the topic of ineffective assistance of counsel. This is necessary because Liukonen's plea breach claim was waived by the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. State v. MacHnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State v. HowardCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005
  2. State v. William F. BokenyiWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014
  3. State v. LichtyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2012
  4. State v. StewartCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2013
  5. State v. William F. BokenyiWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014

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