Legal Opinion

State v. Howell

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided August 31, 2006No. 2005AP731-CRPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLundsten, P.J.

¶ 1. Andrae Howell complains that the circuit court wrongly denied his plea withdrawal motion without an evidentiary hearing. After he was convicted and sentenced, Howell filed a motion alleging that his plea was unknowingly entered because he did not understand what the State needed to prove to show that he acted as a party to a crime. Howell's motion requested an evidentiary hearing, but did not allege a plea colloquy defect, therefore, did not seek to shift the burden of proof to the State under Bangert.1 Instead, Howell's motion contained several factual allegations that, he argues, are…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. State v. BangertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1986
  3. State v. BentleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. AllenWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  5. State v. ReppinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. HowellWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
  2. State v. BasleyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2006
  3. State v. HowellWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State v. HowellCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API