2010AP425 State v. Starks

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 14, 2011//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Successive appeals

Tramell E. Starks, pro se, appeals from an order denying his Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion without a hearing. Starks had alleged that postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge trial counsel’s performance. The circuit court ruled that Starks had not set forth viable ineffectiveness claims against trial counsel, so the circuit court could not hold that postconviction counsel had been ineffective for not pursuing those claims. We conclude that Starks’s motion is procedurally barred, so we affirm on different grounds. See State v. Holt, 128 Wis. 2d 110, 125, 382 N.W.2d 679, 687 (Ct. App. 1985). This opinion will not be published.

2010AP425 State v. Starks

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Martens, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Starks, Tramell E., pro se; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Larson, Sarah K., Waupun

Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event