On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to move to dismiss on First Amendment free speech grounds a disorderly charge that was based on Breitzman’s use of foul language toward her son inside their home?
2. Did the court of appeals misapply the standards for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims by deferring to the legal conclusions in the circuit court’s postconviction ruling?

State v. Randy Allen Lapp, 2016AP116-CR, 3/7/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Randy Lapp’s ineffective assistance claims are numerous and diverse, and the court of appeals quickly disposes of them. To wit:

State v. Erika Lisette Gutierrez, 2014AP1983-CR, 3/7/2017 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Gutierrez pleaded guilty to intentional physical abuse of a trial and had a bench trial on her plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. She asserts she should be allowed to withdraw her guilty plea because the circuit court didn’t give the full § 971.08(1)(c) immigration warning and because her plea was premised on incorrect advice from her lawyer. The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. Ricky C. Anderson, 2017 WI App 17; case activity (including briefs)

Ricky Anderson pled to a sexual assault by telephone from prison, with his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all in the courtroom. The court of appeals concludes the court did not do enough to establish either that Anderson knowingly waived his statutory right to be physically present or that the telephone connection was adequate to allow his meaningful participation in the hearing.

State v. Anthony Colon, 2016AP1071-CR, 2/7/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Colon was on trial for 2 felonies and 3 misdemeanors. During a break in deliberations, the bailiff happened to be transporting Colon to the court room. Colon was wearing street clothes, but he was chained to other defendants who were wearing orange jail garb. Upon learning that some of Colon’s jurors may have seen him that way, defense counsel asked the judge to question the jury, but he did not move for a mistrial.

State v. Michael Steel, Jr., 2016AP796-CR, District 3, 2/7/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court didn’t erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Steel’s requests for a new lawyer and an adjournment on the morning of trial.

State v. William J. Drake, II, 2016AP724-CR, District 4, 2/2/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

It may be that Drake’s lawyer could have done a better job of looking into and advising him about the possibility his Huber privileges would be revoked, but that doesn’t mean counsel was ineffective. Thus, Drake doesn’t get to withdraw his pleas.

State v. Elbe, 2016AP2012-2013, 1/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The Elbes were charged with disorderly conduct back in 1996. They requested the appointment of counsel, but the trial court found that they were not indigent.  This caused them to plead no contest. Twenty years later they moved to vacate their convictions arguing that the 1996 decision violated their 6th Amendment right to counsel. They lost in the trial court and in the court of appeals.

State v. Christopher J. McMahon, 2015AP2632-CR, District 3, 1/18/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

McMahon’s trial attorney wasn’t ineffective for failing to shield McMahon and another defense witness from impeachment using a prior conviction.

Question presented:

Whether a defendant asserting ineffective assistance that results in a structural error must, in addition to demonstrating deficient performance, show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness, as held by four circuits and five state courts of last resort; or whether prejudice is presumed in such cases, as held by four other circuits and two state high courts.