Court Opinion

ID: 9703494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:58:48.175825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:49.909390
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 86. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I agree with the majority opinion that State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), correctly interpreted Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4) and remains good law. I therefore join Parts I and II of the majority opinion.
¶ 87. However, I part ways with the majority opinion with respect to whether State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, should be applied *39retroactively on collateral review. Instead, I agree with the conclusion in Part II of Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent that "Head represents a new interpretation of substantive law that, under Howard, enjoys the presumption of retroactive application to cases on direct review and cases on collateral review." Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent, ¶ 119.1 therefore join Part II of the Chief Justice's dissent.
¶ 88. Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.