Under Douangmala’s reading of § 971.08(2) Reyes Fuerte was entitled to withdraw his plea regardless of whether he knew about the possible immigration consequences from some source other than the judge. The usual harmless error rule doesn’t apply, Douangmala said, because the plain language of § 971.08(2) provides a mandatory remedy for a specific situation: “If a court fails to advise a defendant as required by sub.(1)(c) and a defendant later shows that the plea is likely to result in the defendant’s deportation, exclusion from admission to this country or denial of naturalization, the court on the defendant’s motion shall vacate any applicable judgment against the defendant and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea and enter another plea.”Five justices now proclaim Douangmala was wrong:¶32 We hold that Wis. Stat. §§ 971.08(2), 971.26, and 805.18 are most comprehensibly [sic] harmonized by applying harmless error analysis. All of the relevant statutes use “shall,” and, accordingly, none is “more mandatory” than any other.

Id. In 2013, Ms. Valadez filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2) which permits a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea and enter another plea if a court fails to advise her of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea as required by Wisconsin Statute § 971.08(1)(c) and the guilty plea is now “likely to result in the defendant’s deportation, exclusion from admission . . . or denial of naturalization.” Id. at *1, *3. Wisconsin Statute § 971.08(1)(c) requires that prior to accepting a guilty plea, trial courts advise migrant defendants that a guilty plea or a plea of no contest will “likely” result in deportation, exclusion from admission, or denial of naturalization.

However, Negrete’s plea questionnaire indicates that he was advised of the immigration consequences prior to making his plea.¶3 We conclude that Negrete’s allegations are insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Where a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea under Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2), but there is no transcript of the plea hearing, the pleading requirements for such motions are those set forth in State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). Under the applicable Bentley-type standard, Negrete’s affidavit has not alleged sufficient facts that, if true, would entitle him to withdraw his guilty plea.

See, e.g., Garcia-Meza v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 535, 536 (7th Cir. 2008) (referring to a non-United States citizen as having the status of a “lawful permanent resident” of the United States). Significant here, even non-citizen residents who are legally present in the United States are subject to the immigration consequences that Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) and (2) are concerned with. See, e.g., Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 566-67 (2010) (applying federal deportation provisions to lawful permanent resident); Garcia-Meza, 516 F.3d at 535-36 (same).

State v. Ali Mursal, 2013 WI App 125; case activityBefore accepting a defendant’s guilty or no contest plea the court is required to advise the defendant there may be immigration consequences. Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c). While that statute prescribes a text for the required warning—complete with quotation marks—the court of appeals holds in this case that a judge’s failure to repeat that language verbatim is not by itself grounds for plea withdrawal.

State v. Hou Erik Vang, 2010 WI App 118; for Vang: John L. Sesini; BiC; Resp.; Reply¶1 Hou Vang appeals an order denying his motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to second-degree sexual assault of a child and felony bail jumping. Vang argues WIS. STAT. §§ 971.08(1)(c), (2)[1] entitle him to withdraw his pleas because, although the circuit court provided the statutory deportation warning at his arraignment, it failed to give the warning at the plea hearing. We agree and reverse.

Petition for review of State v. Jose Alberto Reyes Fuerte, 2016 WI App 78, granted 1/18/2017; case activity (including briefs)Issue presented (from the State’s petition for review):Now that criminal defense attorneys are obligated to advise their clients about the immigration consequences of their pleas, Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), should the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturn its decision in State v. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62, 253 Wis. 2d 173, 646 N.W.2d 1, and reinstate the harmless error rule to prohibit a defendant who was aware of the potential immigration consequences of his plea from being able to withdraw the plea just because the circuit court failed to give a statutory immigration warning that complied with Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c)?As we noted in our post on the court of appeals decision, the state’s argument in the court of appeals consisted of an attack on Douangmala, so we surmised the state would ask the supreme court to review that issue. So it has come to pass.As the issue statement indicates, the state argues automatic plea withdrawal under § 971.08(2) due to a judge’s failure to comply with § 971.08(1)(c) no longer makes sense now that defense lawyers are supposed to give clients “accurate advice” (PFR at 10) about the immigration consequences of a plea.

(¶17). At none of her plea hearings did the judge give the Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) immigration warning. (¶19).

(Id. ¶58).Justice Bradley’s dissent criticizes the majority for confusing the differing responsibilities of the court and the defense attorney in providing the defendant with information regarding the consequences of a guilty plea. Although the majority approved the “strong chance” advice given by Shata’s attorney, the majority also implied that defense attorneys could comply with Padilla by giving the boilerplate advice contained in Wis. Stat. sec. 971.08(1)(c) (that a non-citizen may face deportation). (Slip op. ¶67).

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison AppellateIssue/Holding1:¶33 Wisconsin Stat. § 971.08(1)(b) provides that before a circuit court accepts a defendant’s guilty plea, it must “make such inquiry as satisfies it that the defendant in fact committed the crime charged.” This court has determined that establishing a sufficient factual basis requires a showing that “the conduct which the defendant admits constitutes the offense charged . . . .” White v. State, 85 Wis. 2d 485, 488, 271 N.W.2d 97 (1978) (quoting Ernst v. State, 43 Wis. 2d 661, 674, 170 N.W.2d 713 (1969)); State v. Black, 2001 WI 31, ¶21 n. 8, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363.