Source: https://www.wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=400
Timestamp: 2015-07-29 22:04:23
Document Index: 694882466

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 974', '§ 974', '§ 974', '§ 974', '§ 974', '§ 974', '§ 974', '§ 974', '§ 974']

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept one new case. The Court also acted to deny review in a number of cases. The case numbers, issues, and counties of origin are listed below. The Court of Appeals' opinion for the newly accepted case is hyperlinked.
2010AP425 State v. Starks This criminal case examines pleading standards and procedures arising from a defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of both trial and post-conviction counsel.
Specifically, the Supreme Court reviews whether Tramell E. Starks's pro se § 974.06 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel is procedurally barred as a successive motion under Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4) because Starks had previously filed a pro se motion to modify his sentence to vacate a DNA surcharge. The Court also reviews whether Stark's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel satisfy the "sufficient reason" requirement of § 974.06(4).
Some background: Starks was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, as party to a crime, and possession of a firearm by a felon. A jury convicted him of the possession charge and of first-degree reckless homicide, a lesser-included offense of the intentional-homicide charge. Starks was sentenced to a total of 36 years' initial confinement and 19 years' extended supervision. Starks, through counsel, pursued and lost a direct appeal. Starks discharged his appellate counsel and filed a pro se motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, which the court denied. Starks then filed a pro se § 974.06 motion with the circuit court. The circuit court refused to accept the motion due to Starks's non-compliance with the local rules, but granted him leave to re-file the motion within the limitations of the local rules. Starks then filed with the circuit court a pro se motion to vacate a DNA surcharge. The circuit court denied the motion as time-barred. Starks then filed with the circuit court a § 974.06 motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel for failing to raise the alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The circuit court took up Starks's § 974.06 motion on its merits. It rejected each of Starks's contentions of trial counsel ineffectiveness, and thus held that Starks's post-conviction counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise these issues. Starks appealed. The court of appeals ruled that Starks's § 974.06 motion was barred by the successive motion bar under § 974.06(4) and State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). The court ruled that Starks could have raised his ineffectiveness claims at the same time as the motion to vacate the DNA surcharge. The Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL) has filed a non-party brief amicus curiae in support of Starks' pro se petition for review. WACDL argues that the Court of Appeals' interpretation of § 974.06(4) is unreasonable because it conflicts with the rationale of Escalona-Naranjo and with an unpublished appellate decision, State v. Matamoros, 2011 WI App 19, 331 Wis. 2d 487, 795 N.W.2d 62 (Table), Case No. 2009AP2982, unpub. slip op. (Ct. App. 2010). From Milwaukee County.
Brown 2011AP1999 State v. Hammersley
Chippewa 2011AP38-39-CR State v. Jacobson
Clark 2011AP1086 Heck v. Heck
Dane 2010AP2638 Lawton & Cates v. Alswager 2010AP2812 State v. Moran 2011AP43 State v. Reese 2011AP970 Dane Co. v. Ezekiel G. 2011AP1833-W Lacy v. Cir. Ct. Dane Co. 2011AP2012-CR State v. Sonin 2012AP844-W Hagberg v. Pugh 2012AP899-W Schroedl v. Pugh
Eau Claire 2011AP462 State v. Robinson 2011AP2593-CR State v. Robertson
Fond du Lac 2011AP933 State v. Thiel 2011AP935 Amcore Bank v. Heus Mfg.
Grant 2011AP2470-CR State v. Adams 2011AP2647-W Jacobs v. Day - Justice Ann Walsh Bradley did not participate.
Jackson 2011AP742-CR State v. O'Neill
Juneau 2011AP945-CR State v. Wendt
Kenosha 2007AP2187-CRNM State v. Thompson 2011AP531-CR State v. Zalazar 2011AP1702-CR State v. Fields 2011AP2332 State v. Adsit
Langlade 2011AP506 Stamper v. McDonald Family Holdings I 2012AP288-W Maus v. Cir. Ct. for Langlade Co.
Marinette 2011AP2200 Orzel v. Schwarz
Milwaukee 2010AP2232-CR State v. McDermott 2010AP2395 State v. One 1994 Ford 2010AP2404-CR State v. Brown 2010AP2544-CR State v. White 2010AP2559-CR State v. Young 2010AP2612-CR State v. Green 2010AP2681-CR State v. Hernandez 2010AP2834 State v. Brooks 2010AP3017-CR State v. Xolot 2011AP284 State v. Nash 2011AP308 Porter v. Cockroft 2011AP630-CR State v. Powell 2011AP791-CR State v. Lark-Holland 2011AP870-W Brown v. Baenen 2011AP1063-CR State v. Cooley 2011AP1174 Milw. Police Supervisors v. City of Milw. 2011AP1196-CR State v. Fayne 2011AP1527-W Tucker v. Tegels 2011AP1597-98-CRNM State v. Shelton 2011AP1783 Milw. Police Assoc. v. City of Milw. 2011AP2184-W Horton v. Pugh 2012AP454 State v. Elizabeth M.
Oconto 2011AP359 Est. of Hammersley v. Wis. Mut. Ins.
Outagamie 2011AP2008 City of Appleton Police Dept. v. LIRC 2011AP2306 State v. Frank
Portage 2011AP1004 State v. Anderson
Racine 2010AP251-CR State v. Davis 2011AP188-CR State v. Bunch
Richland 2011AP640-CR State v. Henning Rock 2011AP770-CR State v. Phiffer
Walworth 2011AP1144-CR State v. Conaway
Waukesha 2010AP2831 Integrity Const. Group v. Neary
Winnebago 2010AP3027-CR State v. Reid 2011AP1232-CR State v. Metz 2012AP708-W Balliette v. Smith 2012AP870-W Blunt v. Smith