2009AP2720 State v. Shaw

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 30, 2011//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Ineffective assistance

Raymond D. Shaw, pro se, appeals an order denying his Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2009-10) motion for postconviction relief.[1] Shaw asserts that the postconviction counsel who represented him on his direct appeal was ineffective for failing to raise claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. Shaw contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to: (1) argue that Shaw was arrested without probable cause; (2) argue that Shaw was denied a Riverside hearing, see County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991); and (3) investigate an alibi defense. We disagree and affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2009AP2720 State v. Shaw

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

Attorneys: For Appellant: Shaw, Raymond D., pro se; For Respondent:

Respondent

Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Losse, Michael J., Madison

Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event