On Point: 1. Deficient performance

State v. Danny F. Anton, 2012AP1165-CR, District 2, 4/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Ineffective assistance of counsel

In a fact-specific discussion that precludes summary here, the court of appeals holds Anton’s trial attorney was not ineffective for: failing to object to testimony about telephone calls between Anton and a detective, as the evidence was not prejudicial (¶¶10-13);

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2012AP523-CR, District 1, 4/9/13, court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 2/19/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 132; case activity

Terry stop — reasonableness of length of detention; arrest –probable cause

Kennedy was the driver of a car that struck a pedestrian. (¶¶3-5). After about 30 minutes on the scene investigating the incident,

State v. Kendrick L. Lee, 2011AP2126-CR, District 4, 3/28/12; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to present evidence, ineffective cross examination

In a necessarily fact-intensive discussion that defies quick summary here, the court of appeals concludes Lee’s trial attorney was not ineffective for failing to present two categories of additional evidence or in her cross examination of one of the state’s witnesses.

State v. Mark J. Libecki, 2013 WI App 49; case activity

Self-incrimination — waiver of right to exclude immunized testimony and evidence; no need for personal colloquy

In this case the court of appeals holds that when a defendant waives the right to exclude at trial immunized testimony or evidence derived from that testimony, the circuit court need not engage in a personal colloquy with the defendant on the record,

State v. Gloria C., 2012AP1693 and 2012AP1694, District 1, 2/5/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the opinion testimony of the parent’s ongoing case manager, who said that based on the parent’s conduct in the preceding two years, she would not be able to meet the conditions necessary for the return of her children within nine months.

State v. Stephen Lehman, 2011AP2821-CR, District I (not recommended for publication).   Case activity.

Lehman pled guilty to 2 counts of burglary of a dwelling.  The trial court sentenced him to 5 years of initial confinement and 3 years of extended supervision for each count.  The court ran the sentences consecutively, ordered Lehman to pay $1,700 in restitution, and declared him ineligible for the Challenge Incarceration and Earned Release programs.  

Questions Presented:

This case presents three questions involving· AEDPA (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996), and Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), this Court’s recent decision expanding ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims to include rejected plea offers:

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under AEDPA in holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing Respondent to maintain his claim of innocence.

State v. Jeremiah J. Purtell, 2012AP1307-CR, District 2, 3/7/13  (not recommended for publication); petition for review granted 11/20/13.  Case activity.

This case concerns a probation agent’s search of the defendant’s computers.  Following a conviction for 2 counts of animal cruelty, a court placed the defendant on probation and imposed a condition that he not own or possess a computer. 

Martin Woolley v. Rednour, 7th Cir No. 10-3550, 12/14/12

seventh circuit decision

Habeas Review – Issue Left Unaddressed by State Court

Where, on state (Illinois) postconviction review of an IAC claim, the trial court ruled that counsel’s performance had been deficient but not prejudicial, and the state appellate court affirmed solely on the basis of prejudice without reaching deficient performance, habeas review of counsel’s performance is de novo (that is,

State v. Robert Edwin Burkhardt, 2009AP2174-CR, District 1/4, 12/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Search & Seizure – Consent 

Consent to search isn’t vitiated by nonpretextual threat to obtain a search warrant:

¶16      … (I)t is well established that, “[t]hreatening to obtain a search warrant does not vitiate consent if ‘the expressed intention to obtain a warrant is genuine … and not merely a pretext to induce submission.’”  Artic,