COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 20, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT IV |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Richard J. Kronberger,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Before Higginbotham, P.J., Dykman and Bridge, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Richard Kronberger appeals a judgment convicting him of second-degree sexual assault of a child and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. We agree. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
¶2 Kronberger contends that he was not informed of the purpose
element of the offense, either in his colloquy with the circuit court or in any
of the written documents he was provided, including the plea
questionnaire. Acknowledging this deficiency,
the State argues that given the nature of the sex act, Kronberger implicitly
understood the purpose element of the offense.
We rejected this reasoning in State v. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222,
267
¶3 The State contends that Kronberger waived appellate review of
his challenge to his guilty plea by virtue of having signed the plea
questionnaire containing the following statement: “I further understand that the entry of this
plea constitutes a waiver of any appellate review of all non-jurisdictional
defects and defenses in these proceedings.”
However, the waiver rule is limited in application to guilty pleas that
are made knowingly and voluntarily. State
v. Aniton, 183
By the Court.—Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5 (2005-06).
[1] Kronberger also argues that he was inaccurately informed that this crime was subject to the three-strikes law, when in fact it was a two-strikes crime because it was a serious child sex offense. Because the issue we have already addressed is dispositive, we do not consider this issue. See Turner v. Taylor, 2003 WI App 256, ¶1 n.1, 268 N.W.2d 628, 673 N.W.2d 716 (if a decision on one point disposes of an appeal, we will not decide the other issues raised).