On Point blog, page 1 of 8
Defendant’s s. 974.06 motion is barred because he is no longer in custody under the conviction he’s challenging
State v. Michael J. Viezbicke, 2021AP2172, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Viezbicke filed a postconviction motion under § 974.06 challenging his convictions in a 2017 misdemeanor case. The court of appeals holds the motion was barred because he is no longer in custody under the sentence imposed in that case.
Court of Appeals addresses successive postconviction motion, judge’s use of written rather than oral sentencing rationale
State v. Hajji Y. McReynolds, 2022 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)
This decision addresses: 1) the propriety of successive postconviction motions; 2) a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony vouching for the credibility of another witness and to improper character evidence; and 3) the novel issue of the sentencing judge’s use of a written rather than oral explanation of its sentencing rationale under § 973.017(10m)(b).
Challenges to sentences procedurally barred
State v. War Nakula-Reginald Marion, 2019AP2206-CR & 2019AP2207-CR, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Marion was given maximum consecutive sentences on multiple misdemeanor convictions, all consecutive to the reconfinement ordered after his ES in a prior case was revoked due to the new convictions. Appointed postconviction counsel filed a no-merit appeal under § 809.32 and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions.
SCOW finally removes confusion on proper forum for IAC claims against postconviction counsel
State ex rel. Milton Eugene Warren v. Michael Meisner, 2020 WI 55, 6/11/20, reversing and remanding an unpublished order of the court of appeals, 2019AP567; case activity (including briefs)
Seven years ago, the supreme court decided State v. Starks, 2013 WI 69, 349 Wis. 2d 274, 833 N.W.2d 146. That opinion contained a couple of erroneous statements about the procedure for raising claims that postconviction counsel was ineffective. Both parties moved for reconsideration of these statements, which the court inexplicably denied more than a year later. Now with this decision, the court unanimously cleans up the misstatements in Starks, and gives the defendant his day in court.
Partial defense win! COA orders hearing on sec 974.06 ineffective assistance claims
State v. Duanne D. Townsend, 2019AP787, 6/9/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Good news: the court of appeals reversed a circuit court decision denying Townsend’s §974.06 motion without a hearing. Townsend now gets a one on his claims for ineffective assistance of postconviction and trial counsel. Bad news: the court of appeals botched the issue of whether Townsend was denied his 6th Amendment right to determine his own defense under McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S Ct. 1500 (2018). As noted in our post on McCoy, SCOW needs to square that decision with Wisconsin case law.
SCOW will address confusion created by Starks
State ex rel. Milton Eugene Warren v. Michael Meisner, 2019AP567-W, petition for review granted 10/16/19; reversed and remanded 6/10/20; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point based on the petition for review)
Whether under State v. Starks, 2013 WI 69, Warren’s § 974.06 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by the lawyer appointed on direct appeal should be heard in the circuit court or the Court of Appeals.
COA: no subject-matter jurisdiction to address 20-years-past probation extension
State v. James Edward Olson, 2018AP1987, 9/17/18, District 1 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Olson says that the DOC extended his probation by six months without notice to him, and he shouldn’t have to pay the fees associated with those six months. The court of appeals has two problems with this claim: the record contains an order for the extension, apparently signed by him, and his probation ended in 1997.
Escalona hurdle overcome, but § 974.06 motion rejected on merits
State v. Casey M. Fisher, 2017AP868, District 1, 3/26/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Fisher’s § 974.06 postconviction motion clears the hurdle erected by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), but fails on the merits.
Court of appeals sacks newly-discovered evidence and other claims to affirm homicide conviction
State v. Danny L. Wilber, 2016AP260, 12/26/18, District 1 (not recommend for publication); case activity (including briefs)
“This case involves a dual tragedy: the death of one innocent man and the conviction of another.” (Initial Brief at 1). Not one of the many eyewitnesses to this homicide, which occurred during a large house party, saw Wilber shoot Diaz, the deceased. In fact, Diaz was shot in the back of the head and fell face first toward Wilber, not away from him. The State’s theory was that the shot spun Diaz around causing him to fall toward the shooter. It offered no expert to prove that this was possible.
Defendant’s out-of-state imprisonment doesn’t overcome Escalona bar
State v. Rafael D. Newson, 2018AP551, 9/18/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Newson claims that his trial and postconviction lawyers were ineffective for failing to raise lack of jurisdiction caused by the State’s failure to file its complaint against him before he was extradited to Arizona. He also argued that the Escalona bar should not apply given that he was in Arizona at the time of his direct appeal and his first two postconviction motions. The court of appeals did not bite on either.