On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

Thomas Vitrano v. Milwaukee Police Department, 2010AP1987, District 1, 1/11/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; Resp. Br.

footnote 2:

We note with some frustration that neither party included a single citation to the record in their respective briefs in violation of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d).  Record cites are helpful to the court and are required even when the record is not voluminous. 

Docket

Decision below (311 S.W.3d 350, Mo. Ct. App)

Question Presented:

Contrary to the holding in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)–which held that a defendant must allege that, but for counsel’s error, the defendant would have gone to trial–can a defendant who validly pleads guilty successfully assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging instead that,

Docket

Decision below (CTA6)

Questions Presented:

Anthony Cooper faced assault with intent to murder charges. His counsel advised him to reject a plea offer based on a misunderstanding of Michigan law. Cooper rejected the offer, and he was convicted as charged. Cooper does not assert that any error occurred at the trial. On habeas review, the Sixth Circuit found that because there is a reasonable probability that Cooper would have accepted the plea offer had he been adequately advised,

State v. Kenneth B. Bonner, 2010AP1414-CR, District 1, 12/28/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bonner: Dennis P. Coffey; case activity; Bonner BiC; State Resp.

Counsel – Waiver

The trial court’s waiver colloquy omitted two required components: assurance that the defendant made a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel, and was aware of the difficulties and dangers of self-representation,

State v. Charles A. Bouc, 2010AP180, District 2, 12/22/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Bouc: Adam Walsh; case activity; Bouc BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Effective Assistance – Plea Advice

Counsel did not fall short of normative performance standards, where he weighed with his client the pros and cons of admissibility of potentially crucial evidence;

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Nikola P. Kostich, 2010 WI 136

Counsel publicly reprimanded for “a clear conflict of interest,” SCR 20:1.9(a): sexual assault victim had consulted counsel about suing his assailant, and counsel later represented assailant in criminal case involving number of victims including the one who had consulted him. The matters were “the same or … substantially related”; the interests of the subsequent client was “materially adverse”

State v. Kenneth E., 2010AP1520, District 1, 12/7/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kenneth E.: Mary D. Scholle, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

(The Court’s Case Access site has posted Kenneth E.’s principal and reply briefs. This is atypical; the court’s normal practice is not to post briefs, because of the confidentiality that attends TPRs.  Though seemingly not barred by statute or rule, links to the briefs won’t be provided here in deference to the court’s past practice,

State v. Dekoria Marks, 2010 WI App 172 (recommended for publication); for Marks: Joel A. Mogren; Marks BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Ineffective Assistance – Inconsistent Defenses

Counsel’s choice to pursue potentially inconsistent defenses (self-defense; no involvement) was, in light of the “not uncommon practice of lawyers to argue inconsistent theories,” within the wide range of professionally competence assistance.

¶15      First,

State v. Michael E. Ballenger, 2010AP664-CR, District 3, 11/16/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ballenger: Ryan D. Lister; Ballenger BiC; State’s Resp.

Appellate Procedure – Sanction

Ballenger’s brief’s appendix does not include any portion of the suppression motion hearing transcript—neither deputy Campbell’s testimony nor the court’s factual findings or reasoning for denying the motion.  Yet, as required by rule,

State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2759-CR, District 1, 11/2/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence

The trial court properly applied the “fair and just reason” standard to Harris’s presentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea, ¶¶5-9.

The particular grounds asserted – no factual basis for plea;