State v. Lynetta Lake, 2024AP115-CR, 11/12/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Lake pleaded guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle and hit and run of an attended vehicle. Following a hearing, the circuit court ordered restitution. Lake filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call two witnesses during the restitution hearing.
Lake’s neighbor reported to Milwaukee police that Lake had crashed into her car. While police were responding to the report, Lake got into her car and crashed into her neighbor’s car, described in the complaint as a “Mercedes sedan,” again. (¶2). The neighbor and Lake testified at the restitution hearing and gave conflicting accounts. The neighbor testified that Lake hit her burgundy Mercedes sedan, while Lake testified she hit a large, white sedan. The circuit court found the neighbor’s testimony more credibly and ordered restitution.
In her postconviction motion, Lake claimed two witnesses would have testified consistently with her testimony that she hit a large, white sedan. The circuit court denied Lake’s motion without a hearing. (¶4)
The COA determines that neither of the two proposed witnesses claimed they had personally witnessed the accident. Lake asks the court to infer that they had, but the court concludes there is no reasonable basis for such an inference. Therefore, Lake’s trial counsel is not deficient for failing to pursue meritless issues like calling witnesses whose testimony cannot be admitted into evidence. (¶10)
