State v. Charles A. Bouc, 2010AP180, District 2, 12/22/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Bouc: Adam Walsh; case activity; Bouc BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Effective Assistance – Plea Advice
Counsel did not fall short of normative performance standards, where he weighed with his client the pros and cons of admissibility of potentially crucial evidence; discussed the situation with him at length; properly informed him of the law; offered advice as to the risks and ultimately allowed the client to make the decision to accept a plea, ¶17.
Newly Discovered Evidence
Certain evidence, touted by Bouc as newly discovered, was in fact in his possession prior to conviction; nor, in any event, would it have satisfied the requirement of reasonable probability of different result, ¶¶19-20.
Counsel – Sanction
Counsel’s certification of an Appendix non-compliant with § 809.19(2)(a), leads to sanction in amount of $150, ¶21. Counsel separately “admonish(ed) … for his carelessness” relative to misstatements and mischaracterizations of testimony, ¶15 n. 4.
Hard to see why this is a signed opinion (as opposed to a per curiam or even summary order). given how utterly mundane the two substantive issues. It may well be that the court is simply more likely to issue a signed opinion when it metes out a sanction, though this is of course necessarily speculative.
