Court Opinion

ID: 9516442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:42:34.254246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:15.314455
License: Public Domain

WEDEMEYER, P.J.
(dissenting). Delgado's claim of ineffective assistance succeeds or fails on the basis of the fact-finding process of the Maehner1 hearing. The trial court in this case made the following finding of fact: "[T]here is nothing in the record to show that an actual, quote, deal was cut, unquote." Contrary to the majority's conclusion on this point, I do not conclude this finding was clearly erroneous. Although there is *758evidence of some discussions between the prosecutor and McGee's attorney, there is no evidence that a deal was actually made. McGee's attorney's affidavit does not aver that a deal was made. The prosecutor's affidavit implicitly denies that a deal was made. There is evidence that the charges against McGee were dismissed for reasons other than a "deal" with the State. Therefore, I would uphold the trial court's finding that no "deal" was made.
Because the trial court's finding that no "deal" was made was not clearly erroneous, Delgado's trial counsel's performance was not deficient for failing to investigate the "deal" or for failing to introduce further evidence of a deal. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that Delgado received deficient assistance, and therefore, ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

 See State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).