On Point: 14. Ineffective assistance of counsel

State v. Johnny Ray Martin, 2023AP603, 5/28/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects Martin’s claims that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying his attempt to impeach the alleged victim with her prior recantation of a separate incident, and that defense counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately investigate the recantation, prepare to address the recantation at trial, and argue the issue under the correct legal theory.

William Thomas Hudson, III v. Sue DeHaan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 23-2395, 2/11/25

Hudson was tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit first degree intentional homicide and of conspiracy to commit arson. After his convictions were affirmed on his direct appeal, Hudson filed a 974.06 postconviction motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call his sister as a witness and not investigating her potential testimony, and that his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these claims.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. K.E.H., 2024AP1101, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In a dense and fact-dependent appeal stemming from a TPR jury trial, COA applies strict legal standards in order to reject the appellant’s multiple claims of ineffectiveness.

State v. Lynetta Lake, 2024AP115-CR, 11/12/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Lake pleaded guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle and hit and run of an attended vehicle. Following a hearing, the circuit court ordered restitution. Lake filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call two witnesses during the restitution hearing.

Waushara County DHS v. A.M.S., 2024AP730-733, District IV, 10/3/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a dense and fact-specific opinion, COA rejects A.M.S.’s attempts to argue that she was precluded from presenting relevant evidence at her TPR trial and affirms.

State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2021AP1346-CR, 5/21/24, District III (not recommended for publication);petition for review granted case activity

Although this defense win is unpublished and therefore nonprecedential, COA’s analysis and synthesis of the law regarding this commonly litigated issue is an important read for litigators considering such claims.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. M.A.C., 2023AP2068 & 2069, 5/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.A.C. (“Molly”) challenges the circuit court’s decision to deny her postdisposition motion without a hearing. The court of appeals affirms because it says Molly can’t establish she was prejudiced by her trial attorney’s advice that she admit the county made a “reasonable effort” to provide services ordered by the CHIPS court.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. M.A.M., 2023AP1643-45, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case demonstrating the difficult hurdles litigants must clear in order to prove deficient performance, COA affirms an underlying order terminating “Mary’s” parental rights.

Columbia County DH&HS v. S.A.J., 2023AP1884, 2/15/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a lengthy opinion notable for its treatise-like treatment of the issues, COA rejects S.A.J.’s challenges to her TPR order.

State v. Matthew Robert Mayotte, 2022AP1695, 1/23/24, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Given the state of the postconviction record and COA’s narrow reading of precedent, Mayotte fails to establish he is entitled to plea withdrawal given his misunderstanding of the consequences of his Alford plea.