Court Opinion

ID: 9740304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:32:11.417512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.382798
License: Public Domain

*558Connor T. Hansen, J.
(concurring). I concur with the result reached by the majority of the court. However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion relating to the competency of counsel and which adopts certain standards of the American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice.
It is my opinion that the record in this case so conclusively demonstrates the defendant was, in fact, represented by competent counsel, that this is not an appropriate case in which to reconsider the established test of competency of counsel.
The majority opinion makes no reference to several facts which I consider to be significant. The preliminary examination was set for. April 16, 1971, at which time the defendant appeared with his counsel, Attorney Schwartz. Counsel requested an adjournment to prepare for the preliminary examination because of his recent appointment. The matter was adjourned to May 21, 1971, by consent, at which time a preliminary examination was held. The defendant ■ was bound over for trial and a five-day jury trial, which resulted in defendant’s conviction, was commenced on September 9, 1971. A female employee of the jewelry store was in the store at the time the defendant entered. She testified that he was armed with a gun; that she was ordered to open the vault; and that the entire incident took approximately twenty minutes. This witness made a positive identification of the defendant, and it is not and never has been challenged.
Also, I view the motion to suppress evidence differently than the majority of the court and would consider the method in which it was used to be a successful trial tactic. An unsuccessful motion to suppress would have created a situation' in which other incriminating evidence found in the defendant’s car could- have been introduced in evi*559dence. The strategy followed produced a situation where only the stolen jewelry, although highly incriminating evidence in itself, was all that was admitted into evidence. Neither this instance, nor any of the other instances of alleged incompetency of counsel, convince me that this case is the proper vehicle to rewrite the test for competency of counsel.
In any event, I do not concur with the test adopted by the majority of the court. The majority states the test to be as follows, “the representation must be equal to that which the ordinarily prudent lawyer, skilled and versed in criminal law, would give to clients who had privately retained his services.” It is my opinion that the adoption of such'a standard presents an entirely impractical, if not impossible, test for the competency of counsel. The inference is that counsel provided for indigent defendants by the taxpayer is somehow less skilled or versed in criminal law than privately retained counsel. Stated conversely, the implication is that privately retained counsel would be more skilled and versed in criminal law than counsel provided by the public for indigent defendants. I know of no recognized basis for equating the skills of appointed or assigned counsel with those of privately retained counsel. I do not believe it is practical to attempt to make such a categorical comparison of legal skills. The majority opinion cites no authority to support the test which it adopts. I do not know of any, and do not believe it should be the test. To the best of my knowledge, it is not the test in any other jurisdiction.
It is my understanding that the right to counsel finds its basis in the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Essentially, these amendments prohibit the conviction and incarceration of one whose trial is offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right. This means that the de*560fendant should receive a fair trial with the assistance of effective or adequate counsel. As pointed out by the majority, “effective” and “adequate” counsel does not translate itself into a “not guilty” verdict. Neither does it translate itself into someone’s judgment of a test based upon the abilities of privately retained counsel, skilled and versed in criminal law.
The standard of review on the issue of competency of counsel should go directly to whether the defendant received a “fair trial,” not on the play of one counsel’s ability against another. It seems to me the applicable standard is broadly stated in Edwards v. United States (D. C. Cir. 1958), 256 Fed. 2d 707, certiorari denied, 358 U. S. 847, 79 Sup. Ct. 74, 3 L. Ed. 2d 82. Criminal convictions will be upset as a result of trial counsel’s ineptitude only in the most compelling cases.
“. . . Mere improvident strategy, bad tactics, mistake, carelessness or inexperience do not necessarily amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, unless taken as a whole the trial was a ‘mockery of justice.’ ...” 1
As stated in Mitchell v. The People (1952), 411 Ill. 407, 408, 104 N. E. 2d 285, certiorari denied, 343 U. S. 969, 72 Sup. Ct. 1065, 96 L. Ed. 1364:
“. . . Any other rule would put a premium upon pretended incompetence of counsel; for, if the rule were otherwise, a lawyer with a desperate casé would have only to neglect it in order to ensure reversal or vacation of the conviction.”
I would not adopt the test for competency of counsel as set forth in the majority opinion.
Finally, the majority adopts five of the Standards Relating to The Prosecution Function and The Defense Function of the American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice. In adopting these five *561standards, the majority opinion acknowledges that “[t]here seems to be some conflict” between sec. 3.6 and sec. 5.2. No attempt is made to reconcile the two sections and I would not deem it appropriate to adopt the standards with an acknowledged conflict between them.
Furthermore, I have some reservation about adopting the standards at all. Presumably, it could be argued that the adoption of certain selected standards is comparable to the propounding of common law and the recognition of constitutional rights in judicial decisions. However, I would consider the adoption of the standards referred to by the majority in this case more akin to rules of the court and within the purview of sec. 251.18, Stats. 1971. Generally, they are standards that go directly to the conduct and duties of trial judges and trial counsel. This court has in the past sometimes “adopted” and sometimes “approved” these various standards by way of footnote, or in its opinions.2 The lack of uniformity in the “adoption” or “approval” of the standards on a case-by-case method produces a situation where it is virtually impossible for trial judges and trial counsel to have them readily available.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Robert W. Hansen joins in this concurrence.

 Edwards v. United States, supra, page 708.

 State v. Simpson (1972), 56 Wis. 2d 27, 201 N. W. 2d 558.