Court Opinion

ID: 9669377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:54:21.237269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:29.808739
License: Public Domain

On motion for rehearing:

The following memorandum was filed September 7, 1965.
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). Defendant Carter has filed a brief without the benefit of counsel in support of his motion for rehearing after his court-appointed attorney who prosecuted defendant’s writ of error had withdrawn as counsel. This brief does not attack our prior opinion which passed on the only issue raised in defendant’s original brief. Instead these three new issues are raised:
(1) Secs. 954.01 and 954.02, Stats., under which the warrant for defendant’s arrest are unconstitutional and void because “contrary to the Constitution of the United States.”
(2) This warrant was also invalid because the complaint fails to state sufficient essential facts upon which a warrant of arrest can be issued.
(3) There was such inadequate representation by counsel in the trial court as to amount to a denial of defendant’s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution.
Ordinarily this court will not consider issues on a motion for rehearing not previously raised on the original appeal or *455bwrit of error. We here depart from this customary practice because of the fact that defendant is an indigent prisoner acting without benefit of counsel.
While we are not convinced that the arrest was invalid, any invalidity of the original arrest has been rendered entirely immaterial by defendant’s pleading guilty to the information without raising any issue with respect to the validity of the arrest. Bartozek v. State.1 See also Hawkins v. State.2
Defendant employed counsel of his own selection to represent him at his original arraignment. Subsequently it developed that defendant was without funds to pay counsel, and the trial court then appointed the same counsel to represent defendant as an indigent. Because this counsel first refused the appointment and then reluctantly accepted it, defendant contends this established a half-hearted defense on the part of counsel. The record simply does not substantiate this contention. The only specific complaint defendant levels against his trial counsel is the latter’s failure to raise the issue of claimed illegal arrest. A finding of inadequate representation of counsel cannot be grounded on this because ordinarily counsel gains no advantage for the defendant by invalidating the arrest where the defendant is subject to rearrest on a valid warrant. An exception to this would occur where a search and seizure is grounded upon the arrest and the invalidating of the arrest would invalidate the search and seizure. There is no claim here, however, of any search and seizure incident to the arrest.
The motion for rehearing is denied without costs.

 (1925), 186 Wis. 644, 203 N. W. 374.

 (1965), 26 Wis. (2d) 443, 132 N. W. (2d) 545.