On Point blog, page 64 of 71
Counsel – Right to, Public Expense – Generally
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se
Issue/Holding:
¶10 There are two avenues by which an indigent criminal defendant will be afforded counsel at no expense. The first is through the legislatively created Office of the State Public Defender. The legislature created Wis. Stat. ch. 977 of the Wisconsin Statutes establishing the Office of the State Public Defender “to deal with the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants.” Pirk,
Retained Counsel, Choice of, Generally
State v. Todd E. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140
For Peterson: Ralph Sczygelski
Issue/Holding:
¶7 … In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), the 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. at 144.
Right to Retained Postconviction Counsel of Choice – Based on 6th Amendment
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.
Counsel – Right to – Inherent Judicial Authority – Defendant’s Burden of Proof
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se
Issue/Holding: Defendant did not satisfy his burden of proving indigency, for purposes of invoking inherent judicial authority to appoint counsel, where he failed to submit information regarding attempts to retain counsel as well as information relative to rental property, ¶18.
Counsel – Right to – Defendant Must Cooperate With SPD 1st
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se
Issue/Holding:
¶27 We emphasize that the procedures set forth in Dean by this court suggest that the inherent power of the circuit court shall be exercised to cover situations where a defendant cooperated with the SPD’s financial analysis, was found not to be indigent under the legislative criteria, but based on the individual circumstances of the case,
Counsel – Right to – Review of SPD Denial of Representation, § 977.06(4)
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se
Issue/Holding1:
¶11 Kennedy argues that the trial court failed to properly review the SPD’s determination that he did not qualify for the appointment of counsel. In reviewing this issue, the trial court’s findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. See id, 163 Wis. 2d at 511.
Briefs – Appendix: Importance of, and Sanction for Falsely Certifying Compliance
State v. Philip R. Bons, 2007 WI App 124, PFR filed 4/24/07
Issue/Holding:
¶23 Applying the plain language of the rule, Gorokhovsky’s certification of compliance is false. His appendix contains only a copy of the judgment of conviction, the notice of motion and motion to suppress, and the notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief. How these documents in any way inform this court about the trial court’s determinations “essential to an understanding of the issues raised,” we do not know.
Postconviction Motions – Evidentiary Hearing – Claim of Denial of Effective Counsel Due to Client’s Severe Hearing Impairment
State v. Dwight Glen Jones, 2007 WI App 248
For Jones: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶13 Although an indigent defendant does not have the right to pick his or her trial lawyer, Mulkovich v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 464, 474, 243 N.W.2d 198, 203–204 (1976) (“This court has frequently said that, except in cases of indigency, a defendant may have whatever counsel he chooses to retain and may refuse to accept the services of counsel he does not want.”),
Presentence Report – Right to Counsel
State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding: The agent’s use of a prior PSI during the interview of defendant for the current case did not trigger any additional right to counsel:
¶10 Thexton further argues that his right to counsel was violated because he was unable to consult with his attorney regarding the use of the prior PSI during the interview.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Law Must Be Clear – Juror Dissent After Guilty Verdict Accepted and Phase II (NGI) Deliberations Begun
State v. Jennifer Wery, 2007 WI App 169
For Wery: Elizabeth Ewald-Herrick
Issue/Holding:
¶17 Wery’s counsel’s failure to object did not constitute deficient performance. Deficient performance is limited to situations where the law or duty is clear such that reasonable counsel should know enough to raise the issue. State v. McMahon, 186 Wis. 2d 68, 85, 519 N.W.2d 621 (Ct. App. 1994).