State v. Richard A. Hoeft, 2021AP1636, 10/1/24, District 3 (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity
Hoeft, pro se, appeals a jury verdict convicting him of fraud on an innkeeper and an order denying his postconviction motion. Hoeft raises numerous claims on appeal, all of which the COA rejects as “largely undeveloped and lacking merit” and affirms.
The decision details Hoeft’s waiver of his right to counsel, his various statements related to his intent to continue pro se, a discovery issue, and the state’s closing arguments. The court then responds to the following arguments:
1) Hoeft’s Waiver of His Right to Counsel — Hoeft waived his right to counsel after a “thorough colloquy” with the circuit court, and later confirmed his desire to proceed pro se. After one delay to the trial at Hoeft’s request, the court warned Hoeft that it would not delay the trial again to allow him more time to obtain counsel. Hoeft mentioned that he might want to hire a lawyer three weeks before trial, and then on the day of trial, Hoeft stated that he had been unable to retain counsel. The COA concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it denied Hoeft’s request to withdraw his waiver of the right to counsel. (¶¶13-18).
2) Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct — The state moved for Hoeft to be found in contempt just before the start of trial, and the circuit court swiftly denied the motion. Again, the COA concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Hoeft’s request for a new trial, as the state did not file an unfounded charge with the goal of delaying the trial, nor did the court find that the misconduct had a “profoundly negative impact” on Hoeft’s ability to present a defense. (¶¶19-24).
3) The State’s Discovery Obligations — The state mailed Hoeft forty-three pages of documents that he received the day before trial. Although the COA does not detail any evidence provided by the state in its recitation of the facts, it finds that the state “averred” that it mailed the documents to Hoeft the day after receiving them, and that the circuit court found the “witness” to be credible, and therefore affirms because Hoeft did not provide any evidence to support his claim. (¶¶25-28).
4) The State’s Opening Statement — Hoeft argues that the state “lied” during its opening statement by saying that an officer had taken him into custody, which “destroy[ed] the presumption of innocence.” He did not object at trial, so the court analyzes this issue under the plain error doctrine. The court concludes that the misstatement (regarding who or how Hoeft went into custody) was not fundamental, obvious or substantial. (¶¶29-31).
5) The State’s Closing Statement — Hoeft takes issue with the state’s argument that its witness’s testimony was uncontroverted. The court analyzes the state’s comments in light of the State v. Jaimes, 2006 WI App 93, ¶21, 292 Wis. 2d 656, 715 N.W.2d 669 factors. It concludes that the state’s comment does not implicate Hoeft’s decision not to testify or imply guilt due to his decision not to testify, as he could have presented evidence other than his own testimony to contradict the state’s witness, and the circuit court properly instructed the jury on the right not to testify.(¶¶32-35).
5) The Sufficiency of the Evidence — Hoeft argues that the state failed to present “evidence” that he stayed at the motel, and that the state’s witness was lying. The COA explains that testimony is evidence, and concludes that the evidence was sufficient to prove Hoeft’s guilt and supports the jury’s verdict (¶¶36-39).
