Background
Cary Bradley was charged with repeatedly sexually assaulting an eleven-year-old girl in 2019. He later agreed to plead no contest to second-degree sexual assault of a child. During the plea colloquy, Bradley said he was willing to plead to sexual contact rather than sexual intercourse, and the State suggested that the information specify sexual contact as the basis for the offense. The circuit court accepted the plea after finding that Bradley entered it freely, voluntarily, and intelligently.
Thirty-seven minutes after the plea hearing ended, Bradley drafted a letter requesting to withdraw his plea. Through new counsel, he later moved for presentence withdrawal, claiming that his family had pressured him to plead and that he became confused about the charge after conducting additional research. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found those asserted reasons not credible and denied the motion. Bradley was sentenced to ten years of initial confinement and eight years of extended supervision.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. Although a defendant seeking presentence plea withdrawal receives the benefit of the comparatively liberal “fair and just reason” standard, the defendant must prove that the asserted reason actually exists and must persuade the circuit court that it is credible. The appellate court reviews the denial of such a motion for an erroneous exercise of discretion and does not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility.
The record supported the circuit court’s findings that Bradley understood the charge and plea agreement and was not confused, coerced, or unduly pressured when he entered his plea. His family members expressed differing views about whether he should plead or proceed to trial, but the circuit court reasonably found no coercion sufficient to justify withdrawal. Bradley’s prompt request favored him but was not dispositive, and the absence of prejudice to the State did not matter because Bradley first failed to establish a fair and just reason. Without a credible claim of confusion or undue pressure, his request amounted only to a change of heart.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking presentence plea withdrawal must prove a credible fair and just reason; a desire to proceed to trial is insufficient by itself.
- A same-day withdrawal request is relevant and may suggest haste or confusion, but it does not require the court to permit withdrawal.
- The State’s lack of substantial prejudice becomes relevant only after the defendant establishes a fair and just reason for withdrawing the plea.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the substantial role of circuit-court credibility findings in presentence plea-withdrawal disputes. Even under the liberal fair-and-just-reason standard, appellate courts will uphold a denial when the record supports findings that the defendant understood the plea and that alleged confusion or pressure was not genuine.
The opinion also clarifies that acting quickly and identifying no prejudice to the prosecution are not independently sufficient. A defendant must still provide a credible, evidence-supported explanation for disregarding the representations made during the plea colloquy.