On Point: 4. Litigating IAC

State v. Thomas D. Dowling, 2016AP838-CR, 10/26/16, District II (one-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is an ineffective assistance claim against Dowling’s trial counsel for not moving to suppress evidence obtained after Dowling told police officers–whom his wife had allowed into their apartment–to leave.

State v. Jeremy Wand, 2015AP2344-CR, District 4, 8/25/16 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals holds that Wand’s postconviction motion for plea withdrawal failed to allege sufficient facts to merit an evidentiary hearing on his claims that his plea was coerced and that his trial lawyers were ineffective by failing to retain certain experts to assist in his defense.

State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2016AP6-CR,7/20/16, Distrct 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals here holds that Dalton is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing move to suppress the test results from a warrantless blood draw. The record contains no evidence that exigent circumstances existed a la Missouri v. McNeely, and the officer who ordered the draw gave no indication that he ever considered seeking a warrant.

State v. Rafael D. Honig, 2016 WI App 10; case activity (including briefs)

Honig, convicted at trial of two first-degree child sexual assaults, asserts that his trial counsel mishandled three issues bearing on the credibility of his accusers; the court of appeals agrees.

State v. Martin F. Kennedy, 2015AP475-CR, District 1, 9/29/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court erred in denying Kennedy’s plea withdrawal motion without a hearing, as the record of the plea shows he wasn’t advised about the domestic abuse modifier at the time of his plea and Kennedy alleged his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to advise him of the modifier.

Curtis J. Pidgeon v. Judy P. Smith, Warden, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3158, 5/13/15

In a federal habeas case, the Seventh Circuit has confirmed that the Machner hearing, like New Glarus beer and squeaky cheese curds, is a Wisconsin anomaly. State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (Ct. App. 1979.) Special guest Shelley Fite (SPD alum turned Federal Defender staff attorney) explains what this federal court decision could mean for state court IAC claims.

State v. Frank D. Roseti, 2014AP2299-CR, District 2, 4/15/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an alleged discovery violation falls short because the defendant does not develop an argument as to why an objection would have prevailed.

State v. Deshun Latrell Bannister, 2013AP2679-CR, District 1, 9/3/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

A claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely alibi notice founders on the lack of prejudice, as there’s nothing in the record showing what the alibi witness would have said had she been allowed to testify.

State v. Kenneth L. Hare, Jr., 2013AP1675-CR, 7/29/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

In this case, the court of appeals rejected Hare’s contentions that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the law of self-defense and that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a separate IAC claim his trial lawyer’s failure to request a jury instruction on the law of theft.

State v. Jimothy A. Jenkins, 2014 WI 59, 7/11/14, review of an per curiam court of appeals decision; majority opinion by C.J. Abrahamson; case activity

This is a very nice victory for the defense.  It clarifies the “prejudice” showing required for a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  And it assures lower courts that, where trial counsel fails to call an eyewitness whose credibility can be challenged, it is still quite possible to show the prejudice required for a new trial.  After all, witness credibility is for the jury to decide.