Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 1 of 11

FILED
04-24-2023
STATE OF WISCONSIN, CIRCUIT COURT, BROWN COUNTY
Clerk of Circuit Court
State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, Brown County, WI
-vs- Plea Questionnaire/ Waiver of Rights 2022CF000317
Jcrcrniah Lee Robinson Case No. 2H22CF1I7
Defendants Name

I am the defendant and intend to plea as follows:

Charge/Statute Plea Charge/Statute PJea

2nd Degree Reckless Homicide w ith a D Guilty P1 Degree Reckless Endangering safety r~i~Guiitv
dangerous weapon 1^ No Contest □ no Contest

Possession of THC □ Guilty □ Guilty

□ No Contes! [ \ No Contest
□ See attached sheet for additional charges

am P7___ years old. I have completed 8 years of schooling,

□ do □ do not have a high school diploma, GED, or HSED.

EE3 do □ do not understand the English language,
□ do □ do not understand the charge(s) to which I am pleading,

IS am not Q am currently receiving treatment for a mental illness or disorder,

□ have not □ have had any alcohol, medications, or drugs within the last 24 hours.

Constitutional Rights
I understand that by entering this plea, I give up the following constitutional rights:
□ I give up my right to a trial.
□ I give up my right to remain silent and I understand that my silence could not be used against me at trial.

[3 I give up myright to testify and present evidence at trial.

□ I give up my right to use subpoenas to require witnesses to come to court and testify for me at trial.
□ I give up my right to a jury trial, where all 12 jurors would have to agree that I am either guilty or not guilty.

□ I give up my right to confront in court the people who testify against me and cross-examine them.
[3 I give up my right to make the State prove me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I understand the rights that have been checked and give them up of my own free will.

Understandings
I understand that the crime(s) to which I am pleading has/have elements that the State would have to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt if I had a trial. These elements have been explained to me bymy attorney or are as
follows: □ See attached sheet

I understand that the judge is not bound by any plea agreement or recommendations and may impose the
maximum penalty. The maximum penalty I face upon conviction is: 27 1/2 years imprisonment. $126,000 fines, 5 year
D/L revocation ____ ____________
I understand that the judge must impose the mandatory minimum penalty, if any. The mandatory minimum penalty
I face upon conviction is: N/A____________________________________________________________________________

I understand that the presumptive minimum penalty, if any, I face upon conviction is: NA

The judge can impose a lesser sentence if the judge states appropriate reasons.

CR-227 11/19 Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights §971.08 Wisconsin Statutes

This form shall not be modified. It may be supplemented with additional material.
Page 1 of 2
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 2 of 11

Understandings
I understand that if I am placed on probation and my probation is revoked:
• if sentence is withheld, the judge could sentence me to the maximum penalty, or
• if sentence is imposed and stayed, I will be required to serve that sentence.
I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, my plea could result in deportation, the exclusion of
admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law.
I understand that if Iam convicted of any felony, I may not vote in any election until my civil rights are restored,
f understand that if Iam convicted of any felony, it is unlawful for me to possess a firearm.
I understand that if Iam convicted of any violent felony, it is unlawful for me to possess body armor.
I understand that if Iam convicted of a serious child sex offense, 1 cannot engage in an occupation or participate
in a volunteer position that requires me to work or interact primarily and directly with children under the age of 16.
I understand that if any charges are read-in as part of a plea agreement they have the following effects:
• Sentencing - although the judge may consider read-in charges when imposing sentence, the maximum
penalty will not be increased.
• Restitution - I may be required to pay restitution on any read-in charges.
• Future prosecution - the State may not prosecute me for any read-in charges.
I understand that if the judge accepts my plea, the judge will find me guilty of the crime(s) to which I am pleading
based upon the facts in the criminal complaint and/or the preliminary examination and/or as stated in court.

Voluntary Plea
I have decided to enter this plea of my own free will. I have not been threatened or forced to enter this plea. No promises
have been made to me other than those contained in the plea agreement. The plea agreement wifi be stated in court or
is as follows: [3 See attached

Defendant's Statement
t have reviewed and understand this entire document and any attachments. I have reviewed it with my attorney (if
represented). I have answered all questions truthfully and either I or my attorney have checked the boxes. I am asking the
court to accept my plea and find me guilty.

► Jeremiah Robinson
• rttefendant’s Signature

Name Printed or Typed

Address

Email Address

D4J232D23
Telephone Number Date

Attorney’s Statement
I am the attorney for the defendant. I have discussed this document and any attachments with the defendant, t believe
the defendant understands it and the plea agreement. The defendant is making this plea freeiy, voluntarily, and
intelligently. I saw the defendant sign and date this document.

Michael J. Baiskus
Name Printed or Typed

2432 Amos Marv Ct. DePere. Wl 54115

Address

mibiawab@amail .com 920-309-7692

Email Address ~elecrone nj jrr-oer

4/23/2023 1002140
Date Stale Bar No (if any)

CR-227 11/19 Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights §971.08, Wisconsin Statutes

This form shali nof be modified. It may be supplemented with additional material.
Page 2 of 2
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 3 of 11

1060 WIS JI-CRIMINAL 1060

1060 SECOND DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE — § 940.06

Statutory Definition of the Crime

Second degree reckless homicide, as defined in § 940.06 of the Criminal Code of

Wisconsin, is committed by one who recklessly causes the death of another human being.

State’s Burden Of Proof

Before you may find the defendant guilty of second degree reckless homicide, the State

must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following two

elements were present.

Elements of the Crime That the State Must Prove

1. The defendant caused the death of (name of victim ).

"Cause" means that the defendant's act was a substantial factor in producing the

death. i

2. The defendant caused the death by criminally reckless conduct.

"Criminally reckless conduct" means;2

• the conduct created a risk of death or great bodily harm to another

person; and

• the risk of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable and substantial;
and

• the defendant was aware that (his) (her) conduct created the unreasonable
and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm.3

©2015, Regents, Univ. ofWis. (Ref. No. 53—4/2015)

1
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 4 of 11

1060 WIS Jl-CRIMINAL 1060

Jury's Decision

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the death of

(name of victim) by criminally reckless conduct, you should find the defendant guilty of

second degree reckless homicide.

If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.

COMMENT

Wis JI-Criminal 1060 was originally published in 1989 and revised in 2002. This revision was approved
bv the Committee in March 2015: it revised footnote 3 to reflect 2013 Wisconsin Act 307.

This instaiction is for violations of § 940.06, created by 1987 Wisconsin Act 399 as part of the revision of
the homicide statutes. The statute applies to offenses committed on or after January I. 1989. For a brief
overview of the homicide revision, see the Introductory Comment at Wis ) I-Criminal J 000. A comprehensive
outline and discussion of the changes can be found in "The Importance of Clarity in the Law of Homicide: The
Wisconsin Revision," bv Walter Dickev. David Schultz, and James L. Fullin, Jr., 1989 Wisconsin Law Review
1325.

This offense, second degree reckless homicide, replaces what was called homicide by reckless conduct
under prior law. It differs from first degree reckless homicide only in tacking the element of "circumstance
which show utter disregard for human life." See Wis Jl-Criminal 1020 for the instruction on first degree
reckless homicide.

For a case involving second degree reckless homicide submitted as a lesser included offense where first
degree reckless homicide is charged, see Wis Jl-Criminal 1022.

Second degree reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of homicide by intoxicated use of a
vehicle under § 940.09. State v. Lechner. 217 Wis.2d 392. 576 N.W.2d 912 (1998). (Lcchner concerned the
1993-94 Wisconsin Statutes, under w hich both §■ 940.06 and § 990.09 were Class C felonies.)

1, The Committee has concluded that the simple "substantial factor" definition of cause should be
sufficient for most cases. Where there is evidence of more than one possible cause, something like the
following might be added immediately preceding the sentence in the instaiction beginning with "before":

There may be more than one cause of death. Hie act of one person alone might produce it. or
the acts of two or more persons might jointly produce it.

Also sec. Wis Jl-Cnmmai 901 Cause.

©2015. Regents. Univ, of Wis. (Rel. No. 53—4/2015)

2
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 5 of 11

6030 WIS JI-CRIMINAL 6030

6030 POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE — § 961.41(3g)

Statutory Definition of the Crime

The Wisconsin Statutes make it a crime to possess a controlled substance.

State’s Burden of Proof

Before you may find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove by

evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following three elements

were present.

Elements of the Crime That the State Must Prove

1. The defendant possessed a substance.

“Possessed” means that the defendant knowingly2 had actual physical control

of a substance.3

ADD THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS THAT ARE

SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE:

[A substance is (also) in a person’s possession if it is in an area over which the

person has control and the person intends to exercise control over the substance.]

[It is not required that a person own a substance in order to possess it. What is

required is that the person exercise control over the substance.]

[Possession may be shared with another person. If a person exercises control

over a substance, the substance is in that person’s possession, even though another

person may also have similar control ]

[It is not necessary that the quantity of the substance be substantial. Any

Wisconsin Court System, 2021 (Release No. 59)

1
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 6 of 11

6030 WIS JI-CRIMINAL 6030

amount is sufficient,]4

2. The substance was (name controlled substance)3 . (Name controlled substance)

is a controlled substance whose possession is prohibited by law.

3. The defendant knew or believed that the substance was [ (name controlled

substance) ] [a controlled substance. A controlled substance is a substance the

possession of which is prohibited by law.]6

IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT KNEW THE

SUBSTANCE BY A STREET NAME, ADD THE FOLLOWING
PARAGRAPH:

[This element does not require that the defendant knew the precise chemical

or scientific name of the substance. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt

that (street name) is a street name for (name controlled substance) and that the

defendant knew or believed the substance was (street name), you may find that

the defendant knew or believed the substance was a controlled substance.]

Deciding About Knowledge or Belief

You cannot look into a person’s mind to determine knowledge or belief. Knowledge

or belief must be found, if found at all, from the defendant's acts, words, and statements,

if any, and from all the facts and circumstances in this case bearing upon knowledge or

belief.

Jury's Decision

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all three elements of this offense

have been proved, you should find the defendant guilty.

Wisconsin Court System, 2021 (Release No. 59)
2
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 7 of 11

6030 WIS Jl-CRIMINAL 6030

If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.

COMMENT

Wis JI Criminal 6030 was originally published in 1976 and revised in 1987, 1990, 1995, 1996. 1998.
2001, 2010, 2011. 2013. 2014. and 2016, This revision was approved by the Committee in April 2021; it
added to the Comment.

A separate instruction addresses attempts to possess a controlled substance. See Wis Jl-Cnminai 6031.

Chapter 161 was renumbered Chapter 961 by 1995 Wisconsin Act 448. Effective date: July 9, 1996.
Act 448 also extended the coverage of controlled substance offenses to include “controlled substance
analogs.’’ See Wis Jl-Criminal 6005 and 6020A.

2011 Wisconsin Act 31 amended § 961,41(3g) by creating sub. (3g)(em) which prohibits possession of “a
controlled substance specified in s. 961.14(4)(tb)to(ty).“ Those substances are nonnarcotic, hallucinogenic
substances commonly known as "synthetic cannabitioids.” Act 31 classifies them as Schedule I substances.
See footnote 1.

Possession of THC becomes a felony if the offender has a prior drug conviction. See § 961.48(2). The
prior conviction is not an element of the felony possession offense and the state is not required to prove the
prior offense beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. State v. Miles. 221 Wis.2d 56. 584 N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App.
1998). The court characterized this penalty enhancing provision as one that is not concerned with the
factual circumstances surrounding the underlying crime and that does not change the substantive nature of
the charged offense, Enhancers of that type do become an element subject to jury determination. Repeater
provisions like the one involved in the Miles case are in a different group.

The definition of possession offenses provided in § 961.41 (3g) provides that no person may possess a
controlled substance or analog “unless the person obtains the substance or the analog directly from, or
pursuant to a valid prescription . . The instruction does not include an element requiring that there be no
prescription because the Committee concluded that this issue is properly handled in the same manner as
other statutory exceptions For example, the offense of earning concealed weapon applies to “any person
except a peace officer." § 941.23. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has concluded that whether the defendant
is a peace officer, and thus exempted from the statute, is an issue that must be raised by the defendant as an
affirmative defense. See State v. Williamson. 58 WJs.2d 514, 524, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973), and the
discussion in footnote 1. Wis Jl-Crimina) 1335.

Factual disputes about the applicability of the exception for valid prescriptions would likely be
determined by pretna! motion If a factual dispute is raised at trial, the Committee concluded that it is not
an issue in the case until there is some evidence of the existence of a valid prescription. Once there is
evidence sufficient to raise the issue, the burden is on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
the exception is not present. See Moes v. State. 91 Wis.2d 756. 284 N.W.2d 66 (1979); State v. Schulz.
102 Wis.2d 423. 307 N.W.2d 151 (1981).

2013 Wisconsin Act 194 [effective date. April 9. 2014] created § 961.443. Under § 961.443, a
defendant is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for possession of a controlled substance or a
controlled substance analog if the charge stems from the act of rendering aid to a person believed to be
Wisconsin Court System, 2021 (Release No. 59)
3
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 8 of 11

1345 WIS JI-CRIMINAL 1345

1345 FIRST DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY — §

941.30(1)

Statutory Definition of the Crime

First degree recklessly endangering safety, as defined in § 941.30(1) of the Criminal

Code of Wisconsin, is committed by one who recklessly endangers the safety of another

human being under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.

State’s Burden of Proof

Before you may find the defendant guilty of first degree recklessly endangering

safety, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt

that the following three elements were present.

Elements of the Crime That the State Must Prove

1. The defendant endangered the safety of another human being.

2. The defendant endangered the safety of another by criminally reckless conduct.

“Criminally reckless conduct” means:. i

• the conduct created a risk of death or great bodily harm to another

person; and

• the risk of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable and

substantial; and

• the defendant was aware that (his) (her) conduct created the
unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm.2

“Great bodily harm” means injury which creates a substantial risk of death.

or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent

6 2020. Regents, Univ. ofWis. (Re!. No. 58—7/2020)

1
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 9 of 11

1345 WIS JI-CRIMINAL 1345

or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

or other serious bodily injury. 3

3. The circumstances of the defendant’s conduct showed utter disregard4 for human

life.

In determining whether the circumstances of the conduct showed utter

disregard for human life, consider these factors: what the defendant was doing;

why the defendant was engaged in that conduct; how dangerous the conduct was;

how obvious the danger was; whether the conduct showed any regard for life;

and, all other facts and circumstances relating to the conduct.1

ADD THE FOLLOWING IF EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S AFTER-THE-

FACT CONDUCT HAS BEEN ADMITTED.6

[Consider also the defendant’s conduct after the act alleged to have endangered

safety to the extent that it helps you decide whether or not the circumstances showed utter

disregard for human life at the time the act alleged to have endangered safety occurred.]

Jury’s Decision

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all three elements of this offense

were present, you should find the defendant guilty.

If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.

COMMENT

Wis Jl-Criminal 1345 was originally published in 1962 and revised in 1989, 1993, 2002. 2003, 2009.
2012. and 2015. The 2012 revision added the material at footnote 6. The 2015 revision revised footnote
2 to reflect 2013 Wisconsin Act 307, The Comment was updated in April 2019. A '"Reporter’s Note’’
was removed in 2020.

©2020, Regents, Univ. of Wis. (Ret. No. 58—7/2020)

2
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 10 of 11

910 WIS JI-CRiMINAL 910

910 DANGEROUS WEAPON — § 939.22( 10)

"Dangerous weapon" means

[any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded. A firearm is a weapon that acts by force of

gunpowder, 2j5

[any device designed as a w eapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm.

"Great bodily harm" means serious bodily injury.4]5

[any ligature or other instrumentality' used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another

person to impede partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood.]6

[any electric weapon. An electric weapon is a device designed or used to immobilize or

incapacitate a person by the use of electric current.]7

[any device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is

likely to produce death or great bodily harm. "Great bodily barm" means serious bodily

injury.8]9

COMMENT

Wts/l-CriminaJ 910 was originally published in 1989 and revised in 1993, 1994, 1996,2000.2002. and
2009 This revision was approved by the Committee in October 2011; it updated the comment to reflect 2011
Wisconsin Act 35

This instruction is intended to provide a baste definition of "dangerous weapon." Its substance is
incorporated into instructions for offenses having "dangerous weapon" as an element. The comment here
contains a more complete discussion of the substantive issues relating to the definition.

Section 9302(10) reads as follows, as amended by 2011 Wisconsin Act 35:

"Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a
weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality
used on the throat, neck. nose, or mouth of another person to impede partially or completely ,
breathing or circulation of blood: any electric weapon, as defined in § 941 295( lc)(a); or any other

©2012, Regents, UmV. of Wis. (ReI. No. 50—4/2012)

1
 Case 2022CF000317 Document 78 Filed 04-24-2023 Page 11 of 11

REVISED OFFER MEMO

DATE: April 23. 2023

TO: Attorney Michael J Balskus/Defendant

FROM: Deputy District Attorney Dana J. Johnson

RE: REVISED OFFER FOR RESOLUTION

State of Wisconsin vs. Jeremiah Lee Robinson

Court Case No. 22CF317

REVISED OFFER: This offer is from a proposed amended information that has 9
counts. Enter a guilty or no contest plea to count 1, amended to Second-Degree
Reckless Homicide, 940.06 of the Wisconsin Statutes, With a Dangerous Weapon,
939.63 (1)(b), of the Wisconsin Statutes, count 7, First Degree Recklessly Endangering
Safety, 941.30 (1) of the Wisconsin Statutes, dismiss the Use Of A Dangerous Weapon,
939.63 (1)(b) of the Wisconsin Statutes and count 6, possession of THC, 961.41 (3g)(e)
of the Wisconsin Statutes. The State would move to dismiss and read in all other
counts. In addition, the State would amend count 2, Possession with Intent to Deliver
Heroin by adding PTAC. The State would recommend 15 years 1C and 10 years ES on
count 1 as amended. The State would recommend 5 years 1C and 5 years ES on count
7. The State would recommend 6 months jail on count 6. The State would recommend
that the sentences on these counts be concurrent to each other. The State can ask for
any conditions of ES it deems appropriate. The State will ask fora PSI. The Defense is
free to argue.

All offers will become void if the defendant is charged with a new criminal offense.

ACCEPTANCE OF THIS OFFER IS CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH

WISCONSIN VICTIM/WITNESS RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
BOND OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS ACTION VOIDS THE
ABOVE OFFER.