FIPOF — sufficiency of the evidence

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

FIPOF — sufficiency of the evidence

Brian L. Jackson appeals the judgment convicting him of being a felon in possession of a firearm as a repeat offender. See Wis. Stat. §§ 941.29(2)(a) and 939.62(1)(b) (2009-10).[1] He also appeals the orders denying his postconviction motion and supplemental postconviction motion. Jackson argues: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) several alleged errors, which were not objected to at trial, constituted plain error; (3) the real controversy was not tried; and (4) the trial court erred in denying his postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. We reject his arguments and affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP1008-CR State v. Jackson

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Borowski, J., Curley, P.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Stewart Martin, Trisha R., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Remington, Christine A., Madison