On Point: 2. Prejudice

Michael B. v. Marcy M., 2011AP2846, District 2, 5/16/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marcy M.: Jane S. Earle; case activity

By responding (inadequately) to a TPR motion for summary judgment on grounds with a letter rather than evidence such as an affidavit, counsel provided ineffective assistance.

¶10      We disagree that counsel’s performance was “not ineffective.”  In the face of summary judgment that would deprive Marcy of a jury determination on her failure to assume parental responsibility,

State v. Ralph S. Stewart, 2011AP1424-CR, District 1, 5/15/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Stewart: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

Counsel’s failure to impeach police officers, with their own reported statements, was deficient:

¶17      While matters of trial strategy are generally left to counsel’s professional judgment, counsel may be found ineffective if the strategy was objectively unreasonable.  See State v.

Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Scott H, 2011AP2599, District 3, 5/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Scott H.: Brian C. Findley; case activity; companion case: Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Amanda H., 2011AP2599 

Notwithstanding trial counsel’s concession of no strategic reason for allowing the jury to view documents reciting Scott’s “history of violent behavior,”

Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Amanda H, 2011AP2600, District 3, 5/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amanda H.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; companion case: Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Scott H., 2011AP2599

TPR – Severance 

On joint trial for termination of parental rights, Scott’s disruptive conduct didn’t necessitate grant of severance motion by Amanda. 

State v. Darryl P. Benson, 2010AP2455-CR, District 1, 5/8/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Benson: Mary Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Sexual assault charges were not duplicitous, and in any event, potential unanimity problem was resolved by the instructions:

¶17      To begin, we conclude that the amended information properly notified Benson of the charges against him.  The counts were set forth with enough specificity to allow Benson to plead and defend himself and to protect him from being tried twice for the same offense.  

State v. William Martin, 2011AP2168, District 1, 5/8/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: unpublished decision (2007AP1293-CR)

Because the record conclusively demonstrated that Martin wasn’t entitled to relief, State v. Love, 2005 WI 116, ¶26, 284 Wis. 2d 111, 700 N.W.2d 62, the circuit court properly denied without a hearing his claim that postconviction counsel was ineffective (for failing to argue appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness in several respects).

State v. Thaying Lor, 2011AP2019-CR, District 1, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lor: Benjamin F. Gallagher; case activity

Effective Assistance of Counsel 

Counsel did not provide ineffective representation in the following respects:

• Failure to timely file motion seeking admission of complainant’s prior untruthful allegation of sexual assault. However, Lor did not provide, including in his postconviction motion,

State v. Allen K. Umentum, 2011AP2622-CR. District 3, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Umentum: Roberta A. Heckes; case activity

Under a local, Brown County “standing order,” all in-custody defendants appearing at jury trial were required, without particularized demonstration of need, to wear a non-visible stun belt. The courthouse had no screening checkpoints, and any defendant was entitled to relief from the order “for good cause shown.”

Lafler v. Anthony Cooper, USSC No. 10-209, 3/21/12, vacating and remanding, 376 Fed. Appx. 563 (6th Cir. 2010); prior post; companion case: Missouri v. Frye, 10-444

Cooper turned down a favorable plea bargain and instead went to trial, after his attorney erroneously told him the prosecution would be unable to establish intent to kill because the victim had been shot below the waist.

State v. Miller X. Lark-Holland, 2011AP791-CR, District 1, 2/28/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lark-Holland: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

¶7        Lark-Holland’s first complaint is that his trial lawyer did not emphasize the mitigating factor that he said he was forced into committing the robbery, and also made several comments that he says undercut his character.  …  These comments, however, when read in full context,