State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶59 To earn a Bangert evidentiary hearing, a defendant must satisfy a second obligation. In addition to making a prima facie case that the circuit court erred in the plea colloquy, a defendant must allege he did not enter… Read more
29. Postconv. Motions
State v. Tommie Thames, 2005 WI App 101 Pro se Issue/Holding: ¶12 We conclude that Thames’s arguments are procedurally barred. Thames has raised essentially the same issues he raised in his direct appeal and in his 1997 Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion. The fact that Thames’s appeal of the trial court’s order denying his 1997 § 974.06… Read more
State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195 For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶11 A circuit court acts within its discretion in denying without a Machnerhearing a postconviction motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel when: (1) the defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts in the motion to raise a question… Read more
State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68 For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”) Issue/Holding: ¶11. We next address the defendant’s allegation that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied his request to file his sentence modification… Read more
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2005 WI App 265, reversed, 2007 WI 74 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether Lackershire, an adult female convicted of sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, established a prima facie case for plea-withdrawal due to lack of adequate understanding of the elements. Holding: ¶8 Initially, we note that in… Read more
State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71 Tillman, pro se Issue/Holding: ¶2. The issue on the instant appeal is whether the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo may be applied when a prior appeal was processed under the no merit procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32. For the reasons stated below, we conclude… Read more
State v. John Allen, 2004 WI 106, affirming unpublished decision For Allen: Michael J. Backes Issue/Holding: ¶14 A hearing on a postconviction motion is required only when the movant states sufficient material facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief. …¶15 It has been said repeatedly that a postconviction motion for relief requires more than… Read more
State v. Kenneth A. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99 For Hudson: David D. Cook Issue/Holding: ¶11. Hudson first argues that under Wis. Stat. § 974.07(6)(a), the State must “make available” physical evidence containing biological material for independent DNA testing. Subsection (6)(a) states: Upon demand the district attorney shall disclose to the movant or his or her… Read more
