On Point: b. Not found

State v. Michael A. DeLain, 2004 WI App 79, PFR granted, on other grds.
For DeLain: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: Trial counsel’s failure to “investigate and present evidence of exculpatory prior consistent statements DeLain made to co-workers” was not the product of deficient performance, given that DeLain never told counsel about these remarks, and that counsel interviewed all of the co-workers, ¶18.

Issue/Holding: Trial counsel’s failure to adduce expert testimony regarding the propriety of defendant’s “provocative therapy” approach in counseling youths was not deficient but,

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding: Failure to locate and present the testimony of a potential alibi witness wasn’t deficient given counsel’s testimony that his investigator couldn’t locate the witness, along with Arredondo’s failure to convince the court that the investigator had been informed where the witness lived or could be located. ¶36.

Note: For authority all but saying that failure to file notice of alibi,

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz

Issue: Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a theory of 3rd-party guilt, in the absence of any evidence linking that party to the crime.

Holding:

¶31. A trial attorney may select a particular defense from the available alternative defenses. Felton,

State v. Gary L. Gordon, 2003 WI 69, reversing 2002 WI App 53, 250 Wis. 2d 702, 641 N.W.2d 183
For Gordon: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶24. The court of appeals held that the defense attorney’s closing argument concession on the disorderly conduct while armed count was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, improper if done without Gordon’s consent,

State v. William A. Silva, 2003 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/4/03
For Silva: Martin E. Kohler, Brian Kinstler, Donald E. Chewning

Issue/Holding: (State v. Gordon, 2003 WI 69, followed. ¶15 n. 4:)

¶19 We are satisfied that, under the circumstances, Silva’s allegations do not defeat the strong presumption that trial counsel rendered adequate assistance. Silva’s trial attorney did as well as most attorneys would have done.

State v. Robert L. Snider, 2003 WI App 172, PFR filed 8/22/03
For Snider: Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue/Holding: The detective’s testimony as to what he believed at the time he was conducting the investigation did not amount to a comment on the credibility of a witness, hence was not deficient performance, ¶27. Moreover, “(c)ounsel’s attempt to discredit the investigating detective by showing that he came to a premature conclusion regarding what had occurred,

State v. Robert Jamont Wright, 2003 WI App 252
For Wright: Ann Auberry

Issue/Holding:

¶35. Wright’s appellate argument rests largely on Van Rybroek’s testimony at the Machner hearing, which documents the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. However, as the trial court aptly observed, trial counsel’s decision to forego an expert was made prior to Lomack surfacing as a potential witness and prior to the trial court’s ruling that Van Rybroek’s testimony was admissible under those changed circumstances.

State v. Harold C. Pote, III, 2003 WI App 30
For Pote: John A. Pray, Remington Law Center

Issue: Whether counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate a potential defense (inability to work for medical reasons) to one of two counts of nonsupport, where counsel complied with the defendant’s instruction to obtain a plea bargain involving no incarceration and the count with the potential defense was dismissed under the plea bargain.

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App, PFR filed 4/23/02
For Chu: Andrew Shaw

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to retain an arson expert wasn’t deficient performance, where there was no indication the fire was anything other than arson, and defendant didn’t have sufficient funds to hire an expert. ¶¶50-52

State v. William Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, PFR filed
For Nielsen: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding: “This court will not find counsel deficient for failing to discover information that was available to the defendant but that defendant failed to share with counsel.” ¶24.