 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Earley2/13/2002
hicle and the victim's own statement. The defendant then went on to state, "I don't feel the victim was at fault" and takes responsibility for the accident due to not seeing the victim.
. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel indicated that he and Earley had reviewed the PSI. When asked if there were any corrections, counsel discussed two unrelated matters. In reference to the comments set forth above, counsel also stated:
I think, to explain what the defendant was saying to the presentence writer-I did do an extensive investigation on this case, and what I believe the defendant was saying in describing what happened is that it did not happen as was indicated in the accident report and witnesses' statements.
With that being said, it is still true that the defendant is responsible for what he did and takes full responsibility. That is the sequence of questioning that he went through with the pre-sentence examination-that my lawyer found certain things out-but, notwithstanding that, it's my fault, I did something wrong, I have to pay for it. That's what he said, and that's what he said to me all along.
. The record thus establishes that prior to entry of his no contest plea, Earley knew that a violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.25(1)(a) required that his operation of his truck was a substantial factor in producing Kerkman's injuries, and that a defense to the charge existed if he could establish that the injuries would have occurred regardless of whether he was exercising due care or was intoxicated. The discussion in Earley's sentencing memorandum, the PSI, and at the sentencing hearing further indicates that Earley knowingly rejected pursuing these issues, concluding that he was unlikely to prevail on them at trial and electing to accept responsibility for the offense.
. Earley's abandonment of any issue or defense involving causation was confirmed when he entered his no contest plea. At that hearing, he acknowledged that the trial court could accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and that he was waiving his right to confront the State's witnesses. His waiver thus included his right to confront the witnesses whose statements were recounted in the criminal complaint and who told police that they observed Earley's truck strike Kerkman's motorcycle. Earley also acknowledged that he was waiving his right to present a defense or to present his own witnesses, which included the witnesses who indicated that he was stopped or going one to two miles per hour when the accident occurred.
. The totality of the record thus establishes that Earley understood that his operation of his truck had to be a substantial factor in producing Kerkman's injuries, and that he knowingly elected to forgo pursuing any issue or defense regarding causation at trial. Because Earley's plea therefore was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw it.
By the Court. -- Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|