On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

State v. Carl Davis Brown, Jr., 2009 WI App 169
For Brown: Paul G. Bonneson
For SPD: Colleen D. Ball, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶7        The statutes referenced in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(1)(a), relate to the appointment of counsel by the state public defender. Thus, pursuant to Rule 809.32(1)(a), an attorney appointed by the state public defender may file a no-merit report using the statutory scheme set out in Rule 809.32.

Johnbull K. Osagiede v. USA, 543 F.3d 399 (7th Cir 2009)

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s ignorance of rights available, under VCCR Art. 36, to her Nigerian national client was deficient:

Osagiede’s claim is a common one in Sixth Amendment cases. In essence, Osagiede argues that his lawyer should have been aware of his legal rights under Article 36 and should have acted to protect them: “All lawyers that represent criminal defendants are expected to know the laws applicable to their client’s defense.” Julian v.

State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, PFR filed 3/6/09
Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel

Issue/Holding: Trial court refusal to allow Prineas to substitute one retained counsel for another absent “an extraordinary reason,” where substitution would necessitate continuance of the scheduled trial over objection of the complainant and her family, upheld as proper exercise of discretion; Carlson v. Jess,

State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, PFR filed 3/6/09
Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel

Issue/Holding:

¶14      In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the right to counsel derived from the Sixth Amendment includes “the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him.” Id.

Johnbull K. Osagiede v. USA, 7th Cir No. 07-1131, 9/9/08

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s ignorance of VCCR Art. 36 rights available to foreign national client was deficient:

Osagiede’s claim is a common one in Sixth Amendment cases. In essence, Osagiede argues that his lawyer should have been aware of his legal rights under Article 36 and should have acted to protect them: “All lawyers that represent criminal defendants are expected to know the laws applicable to their client’s defense.” Julian v.

Bettendorf v. St. Croix County, 2008 WI App 97

Issue/Holding: An appellate “brief contain(ing) a collection of attacks against [opposing counsel] that are nothing more than unfounded, mean-spirited slurs” subjects its author to ethical sanction:

¶17      “A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials.” (Emphasis added.) Preamble, SCR ch. 20 (2005-06).

State v. Todd E. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140
For Peterson: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: A defendant has a 6th amendment-based right to retained postconviction counsel of choice:

¶9        The State correctly counters that Miller and Gonzalez-Lopez involved the right to counsel of choice at trial. Here, Peterson was postconviction, at a Machner proceeding. …¶10      Martinez and Tamalini provide no guidance on the question presented.

State ex rel. Jarrad T. Panama v. Hepp, 2008 WI App 146
For Panama: Philip J. Brehm

Issue/Holding: Panama’s collateral attack on a sentence previously affirmed by no-merit appeal may be canalized into a “Knight” habeas petition, at least where the challenge is based on a potential defect apparent in the record.

The court continues to dredge up the terrain between direct appeal and collateral attack: Knight falls on one side,

State v. Todd E. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140
For Peterson: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: The trial court erroneously disqualified retained postconviction counsel from litigating an ineffective-assistance claim against his former law partner, the trial attorney:

¶21      Our review of the transcripts reveals little about what the circuit court feared would happen at the Machner hearing; specifically, what risk Petit’s representation posed to Peterson or to the integrity of the judicial system.

State v. Paul Dwayne Westmoreland, 2008 WI App 15, PFR filed 1/17/08
For Westmoreland: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether counsel’s strategic decision to argue inconsistent theories during closing argument (the defendant wasn’t involved in the shooting, but if the jury found he was then they should find guilt only on a lesser offense) was deficient.

Holding:

¶20      We start with the proposition that strategic decisions by a lawyer are virtually invulnerable to second-guessing.