Randall Wright, Sheriff, Shawano County, Wisconsin v. Joseph L. Van Patten (552 U.S. 120)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 7, 2008 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 552 U.S. 120 · 128 S. Ct. 743
- Decided
- January 7, 2008
- Term
- October Term 2007
- Vote
- 9–0
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that respondent Joseph Van Patten was entitled to relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2254, reasoning that his lawyer’s assistance was presumptively ineffective owing to his participation in a plea hearing by speakerphone. Van Patten v. Deppisch, 434 F. 3d 1038 (2006). We granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. 70 (2006). On remand, the Seventh Circuit adhered to its original decision, concluding that “[njothing in Musladin requires that our 2006 opinion be changed.” Van Patten v. Endicott, 489 F. 3d 827, 828 (2007) (per curiam). We grant the petition for certiorari now before us and this time reverse the judgment of the Seventh Circuit. I Van Patten was charged with first-degree intentional homicide and pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of first-degree reckless homicide. His counsel was not physically present at the plea hearing but was linked to the courtroom by speakerphone. After the state trial court imposed the maximum term of 25 years in prison, Van Patten retained different counsel and moved in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to withdraw his no-contest plea. The thrust of the motion was that Van Patten’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by his trial counsel’s physical absence from the plea hearing. The…
Excerpt of a 11,261-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.