On Point blog, page 2 of 8
COA asks SCOW to decide when defendant’s right to counsel attaches
State v. Percy Antione Robinson, 2020AP1728-Cr, certification filed 4/19/22, District 1; case activity (including briefs)
Whether Milwaukee County’s CR-215 procedure for determining probable cause triggers an accused’s 6th Amendment right to counsel for any subsequent “critical stage” of the legal proceeding?
SCOW will address prejudice due to counsel’s poor communication before murder trial
State v. Daimon Von Jackson, Jr., 2019AP2383, petition for review of granted 3/21/22; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/8/23; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from Von Jackson’s PFR):
1. Whether a defendant is prejudiced when trial counsel does not communicate with him before his homicide trial.
2. Whether a defendant should be allowed to obtain new counsel when his current counsel is deficient.
COA: lawyer’s failure to communicate in homicide case wasn’t IAC; trial court didn’t err in preventing client from firing him
State v. Daimon Von Jackson, Jr., 2019AP2383, 12/29/21, District 2 (not recommended for publication) case activity (including briefs); petition for review of granted 3/21/22; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/8/23
Jackson admitted being involved in a planned robbery that ended in the shooting death of its target. He said–and eyewitness testimony and physical evidence corroborated–that he wasn’t the shooter; instead he said he was the lookout. The state charged him with felony murder, armed robbery and being a felon in possession of a gun. Eventually, he entered a plea to second-degree reckless homicide. He says this plea came about because his trial lawyer, by lack of communication or preparation for trial, left him no choice–and the circuit court refused to allow him to dismiss that lawyer.
Federal court grants habeas relief for violation of right to counsel and right to go pro se
Nelson Garcia, Jr. v. Brian Foster, 20-CV-335 (E.D. Wis. 11/9/21).
Garcia challenged his robbery conviction on two grounds. (1) He was denied his right to counsel at a post-arrest police line up. (2) He was denied his right to go pro se at trial. While habeas wins are rare, what’s most remarkable is how blatantly the Wisconsin Court of Appeals violated SCOTUS precedent on both issues. To top that, SCOW granted review and then split 3-3 allowing the court of appeals decision to stand. Now, at long last, the Eastern District grants Garcia the relief SCOTUS requires.
SCOW will review trial judge’s ex parte removal of juror during trial
State v. Robert Daris Spencer, 2018AP942-CR, petition for review, and petition for cross review, of an unpublished court of appeals decision, both granted 8/13/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issues presented (composed by On Point from the PFR and cross PFR)
- Was the circuit court’s ex parte voir dire and removal of a juror during trial a structural error requiring automatic reversal, or is it subject to harmless error analysis?
- Did the circuit court improperly consider the race of the defendant and the witnesses in deciding to dismiss juror?
- Is a defendant entitled to a postconviction hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the record conclusively shows the claim should be denied?
SCOW to review whether the county must appoint counsel when SPD can’t
State v. Nhia Lee, 2019AP221-CR, petition for review granted 5/19/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issues:
Whether a circuit court is required to appoint counsel at the county’s expense when the SPD is unable to do so within 10 days of the defendant’s initial appearance?
Whether Lee’s rights to due process, to counsel, and to a speedy trial were violated by his protracted pretrial confinement as he waited for the State Public Defender to find counsel for him.
Defense win! Court of appeals reverses homicide conviction due to State’s use of snitch
State v. Richard Michael Arrington, 2021 WI App 32; review granted 9/14/21, reversed, 2022 WI 53; case activity (including briefs)
Arrington was being held at the Brown County Jail for 1st-degree homicide when another inmate, Miller, began chatting with him about his case. Turns out Miller was a snitch for State. With the assistance of police, Miller recorded his conversations with Arrington. Then the State used Arrington’s statements to obtain a homicide conviction. The court of appeals held that the State’s use of the snitch violated Arrington’s 6th Amendment right to counsel, and his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence.
Charges dismissed due to delay in appointing counsel
State v. Nhia Lee, 2021 WI App 12, case activity (including briefs)
This is an important decision for areas of Wisconsin where there is a shortage of defense lawyers. In 2018, when the private bar rate was $40, Lee was charged with felonies in Marathon County and then held for 101 days without counsel while the SPD contacted over 100 attorneys to take his case. Meanwhile, the circuit court repeatedly extended the 10-day deadline for holding a preliminary hearing. He finally got one 113 days after his initial appearance. In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals held that the circuit court failed to establish it had good cause to extend the 10-day deadline. It also sets forth factors circuit courts should consider in future cases involving delay in the appointment of counsel for a preliminary hearing.
Defense win! State failed to prove knowing waiver of right to counsel
State v. Jerry A. Leister, 2020AP365-CR, District 4, 9/24/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Leister, charged with intentional mistreatment of animals, wanted a lawyer but had trouble retaining one. After repeated adjournments, he wound up trying his case pro se in the absence of a colloquy to determine whether he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. After his conviction, he retained lawyer, who raised the issue in a postconviction motion.
COA: Defendant was competent to self-represent despite claimed hallucinations
State v. Chad W. Kessler, 2019AP524, 6/23/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kessler went to trial on several counts, the most serious of which was burglary. Five days before trial was to begin, he asked to represent himself with his prior counsel as standby. The court granted the request after a hearing. Kessler represented himself for one day of the trial before giving the reins back to his attorney. Postconviction, he asserts that the court’s colloquy on self-representation was inadequate because it should have delved deeper into mental health concerns. He also claims he was incompetent to represent himself due to auditory hallucinations caused by schizophrenia. The court heard evidence and denied the motion, and Kessler appealed.