On Point blog, page 15 of 33
GAL’s representation of corporation counsel in unrelated matter didn’t create conflict of interest in TPR case
La Crosse County HSD v. C.J.T., 2015AP252, District 4, 10/16/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The fact that the County’s attorney handling this TPR proceeding retained the GAL in the case to represent the her in an unrelated personal injury matter didn’t create a conflict of interest that required a new trial.
SCOTUS: “Right to counsel” guarantees reasonable competence not perfect advocacy
Maryland v. Kulbicki, USSC No. 14-848 (per curiam) (October 5, 2015) granting cert and reversing Kulbicki v. State, 99 A.3d 730, 440 Md. 33 (2014); SCOTUSblog page
This is a summary reversal of a Maryland Court of Appeal’s decision, which held that Kulbicki’s defense lawyers were constitutionally ineffective back in 1995. A jury convicted Kulbicki of 1st-degree murder for shooting his mistress. The State’s case rested on a Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis, which the scientific community generally accepted then, but doesn’t now.
References to victim’s truthfulness, parochial schooling don’t merit new trial
State v. Joshua J. Feltz, 2014AP2675-CR, District 1, 9/29/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Feltz hasn’t shown his defense was prejudiced when his trial counsel elicited a statement about the truthfulness of the victim. Nor was defense counsel deficient in agreeing to allow the prosecutor to refer in closing to the victim attending a school “where moral guidance is provided.”
Guest Post: Mike Tobin on SCOW’s new, narrow interpretation of Padilla
State v. Shata, 2015 WI 74, 7/9/15, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2013AP1437-CR; majority opinion by Ziegler, dissenting opinion by Bradley (joined by Abrahamson); case activity (including briefs)
State v. Ortiz-Mondragon, 2015 WI 73, 7/9/15, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2013AP2435-CR, majority opinion by Justice Ziegler, dissenting opinion by Bradley (joined by Abrahamson); case activity (including briefs)
In a pair of 5-2 decisions, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that defense attorneys provided adequate advice about immigration consequences. In each case, the defendant sought withdrawal of his guilty plea because he had not been properly advised regarding the mandatory adverse immigration consequences of conviction.
As described below, the cases presented different circumstances regarding the nature of the convictions and the advice given by the attorney. Nonetheless, the following points seem clear regarding the court’s interpretation of Padilla v. Kentucky: 1) the court is narrowly interpreting the obligations of defense attorneys under Padilla; 2) the court does not believe that deportation is ever automatic or mandatory; and 3) if the information or advice provided was accurate, the court will find that the attorney’s performance was adequate, regardless of extent of legal research that the attorney conducted.
Freed from the shackles of AEDPA deference, Seventh Circuit finds trial counsel in homicide case ineffective for failing to consider consultation with forensic pathology expert
Oscar C. Thomas v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-2539, 6/16/15, petition for rehearing en banc denied, 8/7/15
Thomas is entitled to a new trial for the intentional homicide of Joyce Oliver-Thomas, his ex-wife, because his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to ask a pathology expert to review the conclusions of the state’s forensic pathologist—conclusions on which the prosecutor relied heavily in arguing that Thomas caused Oliver-Thomas’s death intentionally rather than accidentally, as Thomas claimed.
IAC claims based on Confrontation Clause violation fail due to defendant’s forfeiture by wrongdoing
State v. Royce L. Hawthorne, 2014AP1566/67, 5/12/15, District 1 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs
Hawthorne filed a pro se appeal from the denial of his §974.06 postconviction motion, which raised 9 claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel and 3 claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals dispensed with on and all in short order. Two aspects of the decision may be of interest.
Trial counsel found ineffective; promised defendant would testify, told jury about defendant’s sordid past, failed to elicit impeachment evidence
State v. James Richard Coleman, 2015 WI App 38; case activity (including briefs)
Coleman’s trial lawyer was ineffective for telling the jury Coleman would testify when Coleman had never said he intended to testify; for telling the jury that Coleman had a prior criminal conviction; and for failing to impeach the victim’s allegations by eliciting inconsistent statements she made to other witnesses.
Third trial not a charm
State v. Tyron James Powell, 2014AP1053-CR, District 1, 3/24/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for docket and briefs
After obtaining two mistrials, Powell probably thought he’d get lucky the third time around. Instead, he got a conviction followed by a court of appeals decision that rejected his arguments on impeachment evidence, on the admission of his prior convictions and on his trial lawyer’s ineffectiveness for failing to file a suppression motion.
Voir dire panel “untainted” despite deputy/juror’s assertion that State had enough evidence to convict defendant
State v. Dawn M. Hackel, 2014AP1765-CR, District 4, 3/19/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
During voir dire at an OWI trial, a sheriff’s deputy/prospective juror said he had arrested drunk drivers, testified in drunk driving cases, and said that based on his professional training and occupation the State had sufficient evince to convict Hackel, and, therefore, she was guilty as charged. The court of appeals held this in no way tainted the jury panel heading into trial.
Improperly admitted identification evidence doesn’t merit new trial
State v. Joshua Berrios, 2014AP971-CR, District 1, 3/10/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A witness named Trevino had been barred pre-trial from identifying Berrios as the person who shot him; but on cross-examination Trevino unexpectedly testified that Berrios was the shooter. This error does not merit a new trial in the interest of justice, nor does it support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.