On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

State v. Robert L. Tatum, Case No. 2011AP2439-CR, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Denial of right to self-representation – competence to represent oneself

The circuit court properly denied Tatum the right to represent himself based on his limited education and understanding of legal procedures, as evidenced by his statements and behavior in court. (¶13). While the circuit court found Tatum competent to proceed under Wis.

Questions Presented:

This case presents three questions involving· AEDPA (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996), and Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), this Court’s recent decision expanding ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims to include rejected plea offers:

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under AEDPA in holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing Respondent to maintain his claim of innocence.

State v. Willie M. McDougle, 2013 WI App 43; case activity

Failure to object to admission of, and expert opinion based on, autopsy reports prepared by another pathologist

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object on confrontation clause grounds to either the opinion testimony of the pathologist who did not conduct autopsy or the reports of pathologist who did conduct the autopsy because any failure to object was not prejudicial:

¶17      …[T]rial counsel’s decision not to object to Dr.

State v. Jesus C. Villarreal, 2013 WI App 33; case activity

Trial counsel was ineffective because he had an actual conflict of interest arising from his dual representation of both Villareal and a defense witness who had testified at Villarreal’s first trial (which ended in a hung jury ) and who, before the second trial, was accused of committing perjury during the first trial.

The witness was Villarreal’s sister,

State v. Jeremiah J. Purtell, 2012AP1307-CR, District 2, 3/7/13  (not recommended for publication); petition for review granted 11/20/13.  Case activity.

This case concerns a probation agent’s search of the defendant’s computers.  Following a conviction for 2 counts of animal cruelty, a court placed the defendant on probation and imposed a condition that he not own or possess a computer. 

Martin Woolley v. Rednour, 7th Cir No. 10-3550, 12/14/12

seventh circuit decision

Habeas Review – Issue Left Unaddressed by State Court

Where, on state (Illinois) postconviction review of an IAC claim, the trial court ruled that counsel’s performance had been deficient but not prejudicial, and the state appellate court affirmed solely on the basis of prejudice without reaching deficient performance, habeas review of counsel’s performance is de novo (that is,

State v. Robert Edwin Burkhardt, 2009AP2174-CR, District 1/4, 12/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Search & Seizure – Consent 

Consent to search isn’t vitiated by nonpretextual threat to obtain a search warrant:

¶16      … (I)t is well established that, “[t]hreatening to obtain a search warrant does not vitiate consent if ‘the expressed intention to obtain a warrant is genuine … and not merely a pretext to induce submission.’”  Artic,

State v. Dennis C. Strong, Jr., 2012AP1204-CR, District 3, 11/30/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court undertook an appropriate colloquy with Strong before allowing him to waive counsel and represent himself, leading to guilty pleas. The court thus rejects his claim that his pleas were premised on a violation of his right to counsel, ¶12.

Strong had an apparent change of heart after entering guilty pleas: he turned around and made a request for representation,

State v. Travis J. Guttu, 2012AP129-CR, District 3/4, 11/28/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

After entering guilty pleas to multiple counts, Guttu unsuccessfully sought presentencing plea-withdrawal. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw the pleas on different grounds, more particularly: counsel was ineffective for failing to assert Guttu’s lack of knowledge that his plea to one of the counts (sexual assault) subjected him to potential SVP commitment under ch.

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point) 

1. Whether the non-waivable nature of the defendant’s right to personal presence at voir dire, citing, § 971.04(1)(c); State v. Harris, 229 Wis. 2d 832, 839, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999), extends to examination of a juror for possible dismissal following selection and swearing-in.

2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed two jurors,