On Point blog, page 5 of 55
SCOW reverses court of appeals’ grant of a postconviction evidentiary hearing
State v. Theophilous Ruffin, 2022 WI 34, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
This case doesn’t break new ground or develop existing law. Instead, it reverses the court of appeals for not applying the standard a circuit applies when deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction motion that alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
SCOW to review deference owed to trial counsel’s strategic decisions
State v. Jovan T. Mull, 2020AP1362, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted, 5/18/22, case activity (including briefs)
Question Presented (from petition):
Under binding case law, in reviewing an ineffective assistance claim, the court must defer to a trial attorney’s strategic decisions. Here, the circuit court found Mull’s attorney used reasonable strategies in choosing a defense and handling cross-examination of a witness, and it deferred to the attorney’s strategy. But the court of appeals substituted its own decisions for those of Mull’s trial attorney. Did the court of appeals impermissibly fail to defer to Mull’s attorney’s strategic decisions?
Counsel wasn’t ineffective in OWI/PAC prosecution
State v. Eric Trygve Kothbauer, 2020AP1406-CR, District 3, 5/3/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kothbauer challenges his trial lawyer’s representation in a prosecution for operating while intoxicated and with a prohibited alcohol concentration. The court of appeals holds trial counsel wasn’t deficient or, even if he was, the deficiency wasn’t prejudicial.
Court of Appeals addresses successive postconviction motion, judge’s use of written rather than oral sentencing rationale
State v. Hajji Y. McReynolds, 2022 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)
This decision addresses: 1) the propriety of successive postconviction motions; 2) a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony vouching for the credibility of another witness and to improper character evidence; and 3) the novel issue of the sentencing judge’s use of a written rather than oral explanation of its sentencing rationale under § 973.017(10m)(b).
SCOW will review Brady’s “material evidence” requirement
State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman, 2020AP226-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 4/13/22; reversed 1/10/23; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from the State’s petition for review)
1. In cases involving credibility contests between a complaining witness (here, S.S.) and the defendant (Hineman), to what extent can a reviewing court reweigh the witnesses’ credibility in assessing whether, based on omitted evidence, there was a reasonable likelihood of a different result under the Brady materiality or Strickland prejudice standards?
2. The court of appeals also reached an abandoned Shiffra/Green issue and ordered in camera review of S.S.’s therapy files from his private therapist because the therapist acted as a mandatory reporter.
SCOW will address prejudice due to counsel’s poor communication before murder trial
State v. Daimon Von Jackson, Jr., 2019AP2383, petition for review of granted 3/21/22; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/8/23; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from Von Jackson’s PFR):
1. Whether a defendant is prejudiced when trial counsel does not communicate with him before his homicide trial.
2. Whether a defendant should be allowed to obtain new counsel when his current counsel is deficient.
Machner hearing denied because lawyer’s advice was correct
State v. Michael Nelson, 2021AP1133-CR, 3/9/22, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Nelson, who values his right to bear arms, pled guilty to several crimes, including disorderly conduct and domestic violence. As a condition of his probation, he was barred from possessing firearms. Postconviction, he claimed that his trial lawyer incorrectly advised him that “pleading to disorderly conduct could result in a temporary rather than permanent loss of his gun rights” and that the trial court erred in denying him a hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Defense win! COA holds failure to investigate prior false allegation was ineffective
State v. Shane Allan Stroik, 2022 WI App 11; case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Stroik of the sexual assault of a then-five-year old girl, “Amy,” the daughter of his girlfriend. Postconviction, Stroik brought a slew of claims for a new trial; the circuit court rejected them all. The court of appeals now holds that trial counsel performed deficiently in not obtaining a report from child protective services detailing an accusation Amy had made about her cousin a few months before she accused Stroik–an accusation about an assault quite similar in its details to the one she would later say Stroik committed. The court also finds a reasonable probability that this evidence would have resulted in an acquittal, and thus grants Stroik a new trial.
CoA rejects claims of Brady violation, IAC, and erroneous admission of unauthenticated letters
State v. Ronald Henry Griffin, 2020AP1750-CR, 2/22/22, District 1; case activity (including briefs)
Griffin and his friend, Taylor, were charged with sexually assaulting T.H. Taylor pled and agreed to testify against Griffin, who went to trial and was found guilty. He filed a pro se appeal arguing that (1) the State failed to turn over Brady evidence (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the circuit court erroneously admitted two letters, which were not authenticated. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction but Judge Dugan filed a concurrence on the third issue.
SCOW will address denying ineffective assistance counsel claims without a hearing
State v. Larry Jackson, 2020AP2119-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 1/11/22; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (derived from Jackson’s petition for review):
When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial lawyer’s failure to investigate alibi witnesses, and the State responds that these witnesses have credibility issues, may the circuit court deny the defendant’s claim without a Machner hearing where the alibi witnesses testify?