Opinion ID: 1867276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allen's Postconviction Motion

Text: ¶ 26. Allen's postconviction motion is centered on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. [8] We follow a two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984); State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 127, 449 N.W.2d 845 (1990). A defendant must prove both that his or her attorney's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d at 127. We have determined that an attorney's performance is deficient if the attorney made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d at 127 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). The defendant must also show the performance was prejudicial, which is defined as a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. State v. Guerard, 2004 WI 85, ¶ 43, 273 Wis. 2d 250, 682 N.W.2d 12 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. (quotations omitted). A movant must prevail on both parts of the test to be afforded relief. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d at 127.
¶ 27. Allen's postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to be prepared to examine Bobby B.; failing to call Lynn Allen as a witness; [9] and failing to submit a motion requesting the in camera inspection of potentially exculpatory evidence. The court of appeals categorized these areas generally as allegations that counsel did not adequately investigate or prepare for trial, a claim that Allen furthers in his briefs to this court. However, we will review only the allegations contained in the four corners of Allen's postconviction motion, and not any additional allegations that are contained in Allen's brief. Allen's motion contains the following: [T]here were no pretrial motions brought forward by the defense prior to trial. Also, ... information was provided to counsel by Mr. Allen with respect to witnesses, and Mr. Allen claims that there was no trial preparation and only one visit with him prior to trial. The defense put forward on behalf of Mr. Allen consisted of the cross-examination of those who accused him and the calling of two witnesses, a Bobby [B.], the father of two of the victims, and the defendant, himself. The testimony of Mr. [B.] (Exhibit B, transcript of May 1, 2001) was contentious and defense counsel was left with his answers when there was a denial that Mr. [B.] had written a letter to the Sensitive Crime Unit of Milwaukee County as to how his daughters were being treated in their then household. Counsel had not thought to discover whether the letter existed and certainly did not obtain a copy of it. The testimony of the defendant was nothing more than denials of the allegations, with vague assumptions as to why the victims would be lying. No credible evidence was put forward with respect to any motive for the victims to fabricate the allegations. The theory of the defense, therefore, was a mere denial of the allegations with innuendo and speculation as to why there might be a motive to fabricate, unsubstantiated by any evidence, whatsoever. Further, Mr. Allen claims that there was no effort, in any way, to seek to substantiate said evidence and present it to the jury.
¶ 28. Allen's first allegation is that his trial counsel failed to prepare to examine the first defense witness, Bobby B. The motion summarizes the exchange between Bobby B. and defense counsel regarding the letter Allen alleges Bobby B. sent to Milwaukee County's Sensitive Crimes Unit. The motion asserts that because trial counsel had failed to produce the letter, he was left with Bobby B.'s testimony, in which Bobby B. denied writing such a letter. The fumbling of the Bobby [B.] examination would logically have a great impact on the jury as [it] prepared to evaluate the defense to the allegations. ... Counsel was left looking foolish with respect to his first witness .... ¶ 29. Though replete with information, the motion contains conclusory allegations and lacks sufficient material facts that Bentley requires. Allen's allegations that trial counsel did not do any trial preparation and had not thought to discover whether the letter existed are conclusions he does not support with material facts. Allen's focus on the letter seems to derive from his conclusion that Bobby B. and his former wife, Lynn Allen, are engaged in a placement dispute over Shalisia, and that Bobby B., in an effort to ensure Shalisia's placement with him, wrote a letter to Milwaukee County's Sensitive Crimes Unit alleging that Allen sexually assaulted Shalisia and Tekiara. However, Allen has not alleged sufficient material facts to support his conclusion that such a letter actually exists. He must provide some reason, some fact, that supports the existence of the letter, otherwise his assertion is conclusory. For example, he does not allege that Shalisia or Tekiara or his wife or some other person saw the letter or simply told him that Bobby B. wrote a letter reporting the alleged sexual assaults. We conclude that Allen's postconviction motion on the alleged failure of counsel to adequately prepare to examine Bobby B. does not allege sufficient material facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief.
¶ 30. Allen's motion also contains a vague reference about trial counsel's failure to contact or call other witnesses. This allegation is wholly unsupported. Allen makes no attempt to explain who the witnesses are, what the witnesses would say, how they know it, or why it is relevant to his defense. Further, the record conclusively shows that Allen is not entitled to the relief he requests. See Nelson, 54 Wis. 2d at 496 (stating, [W]here the record sufficiently refutes the allegations raised by the defendant in the motion, no hearing is required). Allen complained during a transfer hearing before Judge John DiMotto, the original circuit court judge, and then later at the start of trial before Judge Donald, that his lawyer was not allowing him to call certain witnesses on his behalf, nor investigating his claims of exculpatory evidence. At both court appearances, trial counsel informed the court that the witnesses Allen wanted to call did not have any relevant information, and that all leads had been investigated and did not amount to anything.
¶ 31. State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 605, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993), and its progeny, see, e.g., State v. Green, 2002 WI 68, ¶ 34, 253 Wis. 2d 356, 646 N.W.2d 298, and State v. Navarro, 2001 WI App 225, ¶ 7, 248 Wis. 2d 396, 636 N.W.2d 481, allow a defendant to request an in camera review of privileged or confidential records upon a preliminary good-faith showing of a specific factual basis demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the records contain relevant information necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence and [are] not merely cumulative to other evidence available to the defendant. Green, 253 Wis. 2d 356, ¶ 34. Shiffra and Green deal with privileged or confidential records. In both the Shiffra and Green cases, the defendants were charged with sexual crimes, and in both cases, both defendants sought an in camera review of the alleged victim's counseling records. Green, 253 Wis. 2d 356, ¶ 9; Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d at 603. In Navarro, the defendant requested confidential department of corrections records relating to the alleged victim, a correctional officer. Navarro, 248 Wis. 2d 396, ¶¶ 3-4. Allen does not request review of the victims' privileged or confidential records. Therefore, his motion is not a  Shiffra motion. ¶ 32. Instead, Allen's motion contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion for an in camera review of other court documents containing what he alleges to be potentially exculpatory evidence. Allen asserted that it became apparent that defense counsel was going to attempt to introduce evidence of Bobby B.'s conviction for sexual assault, and evidence of the placement dispute between Bobby B. and Lynn Allen. Prior to the start of trial, the circuit court ruled that defense counsel could not reference Bobby B.'s sexual assault conviction or the placement dispute in his opening statement. As a result, defense counsel waived his opening statement. Allen claims that because trial counsel did not make a pre-trial motion for review of any related court proceedings, prosecutions, affidavits, or any form of evidence, whatsoever, the defense was unable to rebut the State's argument that the only defense Allen had was speculation. Allen submits that this failure to establish whether any evidence actually existed left the circuit court and Allen adrift and denied him a fair trial. ¶ 33. As with his first alleged failure of trial counsel, Allen provides many facts, but no material facts. Allen does not list what records actually exist or whether they are privileged, and he asserts no facts explaining why any such records may be relevant. He simply sets forth a general list of documents that he asserts potentially could contain information that he guesses is out there. Further, Allen provides only his opinion that the records he seeks contain relevant or exculpatory information; this is not a fact. There is no factual basis to believe that Bobby B. encouraged his daughters to concoct sexual assault charges against Allen in order to aid his placement dispute with their mother. Furthermore, it is just as likely that any records on the placement dispute bear out Shalisia's testimony: that she wanted to live with her father primarily because of the assaults she experienced at the hands of her stepfather. Further, any conviction Bobby B. may have for sexual assault of a child was held not to be admissible and therefore, would have been of no use to Allen's defense. ¶ 34. We conclude that Allen again has failed to raise sufficient material facts that would entitle him to the relief he seeks; therefore, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying his motion without a hearing.