On Point blog, page 15 of 55
Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, present defense witnesses
State v. Tanya Lynn Schmit, 2017AP871-CR, District 3, 7/31/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Schmit was charged with OWI. She told her trial lawyer there were two witnesses who would support her defense that she wasn’t the driver, but trial counsel didn’t interview the witnesses or call them at trial. Trial counsel’s failure constitutes deficient performance and the deficiency was prejudicial.
Defense win! Court of appeals remands ineffective assistance of counsel claims for Machner hearing
State v. Ronald Lee. Gilbert, 2016AP1852-CR, 6/26/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Congratulations to Quarles & Brady, which took this appeal pro bono, for scoring a defense win! Gilbert, who was convicted trafficking a child and related crimes, argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) challenge the admission of cellular phone data testimony, (2) demand discovery before trial, (3) impeach the State’s star witnesses with prior inconsistent statements, and (4) strike a biased juror. Gilbert further alleged that his trial counsel made improper statements during his closing. The court of appeals granted a Machner hearing on all claims except the one regarding juror bias.
SCOTUS will address effect of lawyer’s failure to file notice of appeal where plea agreement included an appeal waiver
Gilberto Garza, Jr. v. Idaho, USSC No. 17-1026, certiorari granted 6/18/18
Does the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), apply where a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver?
SCOW addresses counsel’s duty to investigate client’s brain injury, clarifies when lawyer may testify as expert at Machner hearing
State v. Anthony R. Pico, 2018 WI 66, 6/15/18, affirming a split, unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2015AP1799-Cr, case activity (including briefs)
This split decision clarifies important aspects of ineffective assistance of counsel law, sentencing law, and appellate procedure. In addition, Justice Abrahamson’s dissent includes a word of caution for lawyers representing clients who have experienced brain trauma that may affect their mental capacity.
Court of appeals applies new “prejudice” test to claim for ineffective assistance during plea bargaining
State v. Gitan Mbugua, 2017AP967, District 1, 6/12/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This appeal concerns ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with 2 plea offers. Mbugua claimed that his 1st lawyer provided him incorrect information about option 2 of “plea offer 1” and this caused him to reject “plea offer 1” altogether. He also claims that during a second round of plea bargaining, option 2 of “plea offer 1” remained on the table, and his second lawyer incorrectly advised him to reject it in favor of an entirely new plea offer (we’ll call it “plea offer 2”), which proved to be bad deal. The court of appeals denied both claims for lack of prejudice based upon Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012). A quick Westlaw search suggests that this is the first Wisconsin case to apply Lafler (and it’s unpublished).
Denial of substitute counsel affimed; it was defendant’s responsibility to procure his witnesses for trial
State v. Anthony Donte Dixon, 2017AP2221-2222-CR, 6/5/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity
Dixon wasn’t happy with his trial lawyer. They hadn’t communicated before the final pre-trial conference. When they did communicate, Dixon told his lawyer that he wanted him to contact several alibi witnesses and provided their names and numbers. Two witnesses didn’t return counsel’s call. One “simply gave her information” [no explanation of that means.] On the day of the trial, counsel informed the court that Dixon wanted to fire him and was prepared to get a new lawyer on his own. The trial court denied the request so Dixon tried his case pro se.
Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to challenge officer’s credibility at suppression hearing
State v. Royce O. Bernard, 2017AP2162-CR, District 1, 5/22/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After being charged with carrying a concealed weapon, Bernard challenged the Terry stop that led to the charge. His suppression motion was denied. Postconviction he argued trial counsel was ineffective because he failed in various ways to undermine the credibility of the officer who stopped Bernard. The court of appeals holds Bernard’s postconviction motion failed to allege sufficient facts to get a Machner hearing.
For IAC claims in multi-count cases, SCOW says courts may determine prejudice on a count-by-count basis
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2018 WI 53, 5/18/18, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2016AP897-CR, case activity
Appellate lawyers will want to pay attention to this decision because it clarifies the law and procedure governing claims for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In particular, resolving an issue of first impression, it holds that in a multi-count case, trial counsel’s ineffective assistance doesn’t automatically result in a new trial on all counts. In this case, SCOW affirmed a decision ordering a new trial on just 1 of 6 counts.
Defense win in SCOTUS casts doubt on SCOW decision permitting counsel to concede client’s guilt
McCoy v. Louisiana, USSC No. 16 – 8255, 2018 WL 218-617, 5/14/18, reversing and remanding State v. McCoy, 2018 So.3d 535 (La. 2016); SCOTUSblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary).
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, SCOTUS holds that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the objective of his defense and to insist that his lawyer refrain from admitting that he is guilty of a charged crime when he objects to that admission. It further holds that if a lawyer concedes guilt in this situation, Strickland and the harmless error rule do not apply. The defendant automatically gets a new trial.
SCOW says prisoner wasn’t prejudiced by appearing before jury in prison garb flanked by uniformed gaurds
Winnebago County v. J.M., 4/18/18, 2018 WI 37, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2016AP619, case activity.
This opinion will interest lawyers who handle Chapter 51 cases and appellate lawyers of all stripes. It establishes that persons undergoing Chapter 51 mental commitments are entitled to the effective assistance of counsel and formally adopts the Strickland test for ineffective assistance. It further holds that, due to the overwhelming evidence of dangerousness in this case, J.M. was not prejudiced when his counsel failed to object to him appearing before the jury wearing prison clothes accompanied by uniformed guards–even as he testified. Of particular interest to appellate lawyers, SCOW granted a motion to strike significant parts of Winnebago County’s oral argument because its lawyer asserted facts outside the appellate record.