On Point blog, page 2 of 3
Advice to admit to “reasonable effort” not structural or prejudicial error in TPR trial
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.
COA holds parent failed to establish deficient performance in TPR appeal alleging IAC
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.
COA rejects ineffectiveness claim and challenge to denial of request for new counsel in TPR appeal
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.
COA holds that defendant’s misunderstanding about guilty plea waiver rule does not entitle him to plea withdrawal
State v. Matthew Robert Mayotte, 2022AP1695, 1/23/24, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.
COA remands for “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing
State v. Michele M. Ford, 2022AP187 & 2022AP188, 10/31/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The takeaway from this procedurally convoluted case is that Ford succeeds in her appeal from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial in two misdemeanor cases. Specifically, the court reverses and remands for a “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing at which the circuit court will have to determine whether Ford was competent to proceed without relying on trial counsel’s statements to the evaluator, which the court holds violated the attorney-client privilege and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Op., ¶26).
7th Circuit denies habeas relief to Wisconsin prisoner despite being “deeply troubled by the performance of defense counsel;” addresses impact of no-merit petition for review as to alleged procedural default
Tyler A. Gonzales v. Cheryl Eplett, No. 22-2393, 8/9/23 (Available on Westlaw as 2023 WL 5086451)
In a case demonstrating the full power of AEDPA’s stringent standard of review, the 7th Circuit is powerless to grant a new trial despite its palpable discomfort when evaluating the performance of defense counsel.
SCOW reaffirms that trial counsel’s strategic decisions are given deference only if they are reasonable
State v. Jovan T. Mull, 2023 WI 26, 4/4/23, reversing a per curiam decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court rejects Mull’s claims that his trial lawyer was ineffective at his trial, though it reaffirms that trial counsel’s strategic decisions are not given automatic deference, but are judged for their objective reasonableness under all the circumstances.
COA overlooks procedural bar, State’s failure to file to a response brief; affirms based on well-settled plea withdrawal case law
State v. William J. Buffo, 2022AP1803-4-CR, District IV, 7/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs available)
In another messy pro se appeal, COA overlooks the State’s failure to file a response brief and affirms the circuit court’s “evidently correct” decision.
Parent forfeited challenges to competency and jurisdiction in TPR appeal by not objecting to defective service
State v. I.B., 2022AP911 & 2022AP912, District I, 6/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
Although the State appears to have conceded it did not follow the statutory requirements for proper service of the petition(s) in this TPR, Ivy’s appeal fails because she did not object below. And, because the error could have been cured if counsel had objected, her ineffectiveness claim also fails.
Circular reasoning upheld as mother testifies about father’s suspected heroin use during TPR trial
N.D. v. E.S., 2022AP1084, District 2, 01/25/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Nancy (N.D.) petitioned to terminate Ed’s (E.D.’s) parental rights on the grounds that he abandoned their daughter, Kim. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1). At trial, Ed asserted a “good cause” defense that Nancy prevented him from having contact with Kim, and in response, Nancy was allowed to testify that the reason for her interference was Ed’s “heroin use.” Despite the fact that Nancy had no personal knowledge of Ed’s suspected heroin use, the circuit court ruled, and the court of appeals agrees, that the fact that Ed admitted to being drug tested was sufficient foundation for Nancy’s testimony. As a result, Ed’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to this evidence fails.