Legal Opinion

Pulaski v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1964PublishedCited by 75 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.

On the hearing of the motion, no question was raised by the state that the court was without jurisdiction, but on this appeal the question is raised whether a motion for a new trial can be properly made after the sentencing on a plea of guilty. A motion for a new trial where a sentence has been imposed upon a finding of guilty based on a plea of guilty implies the withdrawal of the plea. Likewise, a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and to vacate the judgment and sentence implies the necessity of a subsequent trial. It apparently has been assumed without question and the practice up to…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Haynes v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Kercheval v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Fikes v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Turner v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  5. White v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1940

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

3Cited by75 opinions

  1. State v. ReppinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Ernst v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. State v. HarperWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  4. State v. StricklandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Embry v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970

70 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