Court Opinion

ID: 9667862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:56:40.323263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:40.325347
License: Public Domain

Robert W. Hansen, J.
(dissenting). The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and of endangering safety by conduct regardless of human life.
*752The defendant appealed those convictions to this court.1 Our court affirmed, finding that this defendant “confessed to the murder a number of times,”2 and agreeing with the jury and trial court that the defendant was sane at the time of commission of the crimes.3
On that appeal, the defendant raised exactly ninety-nine claims of error.4 As to the ninety-nine claims of error, our court found no errors “which, considered individually or added together, require or warrant ordering a new trial.”5
On that appeal, no reference was made to the “brown sealed envelope.” No claim of error was made as to the trial court’s holding that the envelope contained no exculpatory evidence, the exclusion of which would or could prejudice the defendant.
On that appeal, the “brown sealed envelope” was not included in the record sent to this court on appeal. No complaint as to such omission was made by this defendant. No effort was made by him or on his behalf to have the envelope made part of the record and brought to this court on the appeal.
Any right of this defendant to have the envelope included in the record on appeal was then and there waived. Any right to claim error as to the trial court holding that the envelope did not contain exculpatory materials was likewise then and there waived.
The only basis for belated and subsequent challenge as to the ruling on the contents of the envelope would be on the basis of a denial of adequate representation of this *753defendant by Ms attorneys on the appeal. They raised exactly ninety-nine issues, most of them relating to admissibility of various confessions of the murder by the defendant and the jury finding as to sanity.
The writer notes that trial counsel, and appellate counsel, were experienced and able trial attorneys. Both were well versed in the handling of criminal cases. They raised and resolutely argued the ninety-nine issues. They pursued these ninety-nine issues on proceedings in the federal courts.6 The writer would not fault them for not raising a one-hundredth issue as to the court’s ruling on the contents of an envelope. They knew of the envelope and of the trial court’s ruling as to its contents. They were in a better position than postconviction counsel to decide whether such one-hundredth issue would or would not bolster defendant’s chances for reversal of convictions on appeal.
On this record, finding the issue as to the envelope and its contents was waived because not raised on appeal, the writer would affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for postconviction relief.

 State v. Bergenthal (1970) 47 Wis. 2d 668, 178 N. W. 2d 16, certiorari denied (1971), 402 U. S. 972, 91 Sup. Ct. 1657, 29 L. Ed. 2d 136.

 Id. at page 676.

 Id., at pages 685, 686.

 Id. at page 673.

 Id. at page 688.

 See: Bergenthal v. Cady (E. D. Wis. 1971), 326 Fed. Supp. 848, affirmed (7th Cir. 1972), 466 Fed. 2d 635, certiorari denied (1973), 409 U. S. 1109, 93 Sup. Ct. 913, 34 L. Ed. 2d 690.