Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Jonathan D. Gardner appeals from a judgment of conviction for three counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, and from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.[1] Gardner argues that he is entitled to a new trial because: (1) due to the ineffective assistance of trial counsel, his on-the-record waiver of his Fifth Amendment right to testify was unknowing and involuntary; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted the victim’s videotaped statement; and (3) the trial court erroneously admitted unduly prejudicial evidence concerning electronic communications between Gardner and the victim. Gardner also argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because trial counsel’s sentencing argument was inconsistent and constituted ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We reject all of Gardner’s claims and affirm the judgment and order. This opinion will not be published.

2011AP1264-CR State v. Gardner

Dist II, Waukesha County, Davis, Stilling, JJ., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Pinix, Matthew S., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Wren, Christopher G., Madison; Schimel, Brad, Waukesha

Leave a Comment