State v. Krawczyk

17 Citing cases

  1. State v. Egerson

    Appeal No. 2016AP1047-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018)

    First, Egerson makes no claim that he would not have pled guilty but for trial counsel's ineffectiveness. See State v. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, ¶¶28-29, 259 Wis. 2d 843, 657 N.W.2d 77. Second, all of the repeater enhancers were dismissed from the charges to which he pled guilty.

  2. State v. Fugere

    2019 WI 33 (Wis. 2019)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A defendant can meet that burden by showing that he or she did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter the plea. Id. (citing State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, ¶ 15, 253 Wis. 2d 38, 644 N.W.2d 891 ; State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis. 2d 615, 635-36, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998) ; State v. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, ¶ 9, 259 Wis. 2d 843, 657 N.W.2d 77 ). ¶17 Whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily is a question of constitutional fact.

  3. State v. Walker

    2008 WI 34 (Wis. 2008)   Cited 17 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the circuit court considered the defendant's lack of phone service for electronic monitoring a factor in a reconfinement hearing

    ¶ 13. Interpretation of our own case law presents a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, ¶ 10, 259 Wis. 2d 843, 657 N.W.2d 77. "The standards governing appellate review of an imposed sentence are well settled. A circuit court exercises its discretion at sentencing, and appellate review is limited to determining if the court's discretion was erroneously exercised.

  4. State v. Brown

    2006 WI 100 (Wis. 2006)   Cited 266 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the court, with the assistance of the district attorney, must engage a defendant at a plea colloquy to make “a complete record.”

    State v. Thomas, 2000 WI 13, ¶ 16, 232 Wis. 2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836. One way for a defendant to meet this burden is to show that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter the plea. State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, ¶ 15, 253 Wis. 2d 38, 644 N.W.2d 891; State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis. 2d 615, 636, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998); State v. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, ¶ 9, 259 Wis. 2d 843, 657 N.W.2d 77. ¶ 19.

  5. State v. La Brec

    No. 2021AP2110-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2024)

    Here, armed robbery with the use of force is the underlying felony required for felony murder, and it is therefore a lesser-included offense of felony murder.See State v. Krawczyk, 2003 WI.App. 6, ¶26, 259 Wis.2d 843, 657 N.W.2d 77 (2002) (stating that the underlying felony in felony murder is a lesser-included offense of felony murder). Felony murder is also a more serious offense, given that the maximum sentence for felony murder is greater than the maximum sentence for armed robbery with the use of force.

  6. State v. Hicks

    921 N.W.2d 527 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018)

    ¶ 13 In sum, the evidence was sufficient to support party to a crime liability for attempted armed robbery under either WIS. STAT. § 939.05(2)(b) or (c). "[F]elony murder liability exists if a defendant is party to one of the listed felonies from which a death results." State v. Krawczyk , 2003 WI App 6, ¶ 24, 259 Wis. 2d 843, 657 N.W.2d 77. In turn, armed robbery is listed as one of the crimes or attempted crimes that gives rise to felony murder liability under WIS. STAT. § 940.03.

  7. State v. Grant

    857 N.W.2d 486 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014)

    ¶ 5 It is true that a defendant cannot be convicted of both felony murder and the predicate offense; the predicate is necessarily a lesser-included offense of felony murder. See State v. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, ¶ 26, 259 Wis.2d 843, 657 N.W.2d 77. It is not wholly clear why Grant believes he was convicted of both felony murder and armed robbery, but we suspect Grant's confusion stems from the judgment's description of his offense as “Felony Murder–Armed Robbery.”¶ 6 This charge description is not inaccurate: it lists both the offense of conviction and the predicate offense.

  8. State v. Hansbrough

    2011 WI App. 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Hansbrough, the court of appeals recognized the distinction between "trial errors, which are subject to harmless error analysis, and structural errors, which defy analysis by harmless error standards."

    Hansbrough was sentenced to a-total of thirty years' initial confinement and sixteen years of extended supervision. See State v. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, II 26, 259 Wis. 2d 843, 657 N.W2d 77 (Ct. App. 2002) (because the underlying felony is a lesser-included offense of felony murder, constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy prohibit conviction for both crimes).

  9. State v. Minnis

    795 N.W.2d 492 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011)

    ¶ 20 We have rejected the notion that a defendant who has obtained relief from one conviction offers a legitimate reason for resentencing on remaining convictions by suggesting that he or she "would fare no worse" at a new proceeding. See State v. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, ¶ 37, 259 Wis. 2d 843, 657 N.W.2d 77. In Krawczyk, the defendant pled guilty to several crimes and later successfully moved to set aside one conviction as multiplicitous.

  10. State v. Payne

    762 N.W.2d 863 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008)

    A conviction for felony murder requires a showing that the defendant committed or attempted to commit one of the felonies listed in WIS. STAT. § 940.03 (which includes armed robbery) and that a death occurred as a result. Id.; see alsoState v. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, ¶ 24, 259 Wis. 2d 843, 657 N.W.2d 77 ("[F]elony murder liability exists if a defendant is a party to one of the listed felonies from which a death results."). ¶ 11 At issue is whether Payne aided and abetted the crime of armed robbery.