By: Derek Hawkins//April 18, 2017//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: State of Wisconsinv. Frank V. Blonda
Case No.: 2015AP2431-CR
Officials: Brennan, P.J., Brash, and Dugan, JJ.
Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Frank V. Blonda appeals a judgment of conviction for substantial battery with intent to do bodily harm in violation of WIS. STAT. § 940.19(2)(2015-16) and disorderly conduct in violation of WIS. STAT. § 947.01(1), with both crimes being subject to the domestic abuse enhancer of WIS. STAT. § 968.075(1)(a), and the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Blonda sought post-conviction relief, seeking a new trial on the grounds that: (1) prior to trial the State failed to disclose exculpatory Brady evidence of statements that the victim, M.L., made—the first an oral statement to a victim advocate from the district attorney’s office victim advocate unit, and the second, her own subsequently written victim impact statement ; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in not impeaching M.L.’s hearsay statements with the two statements referenced above and statements she made to others; and, (3) the real controversy was not tried. Alternatively, Blonda asserts that this court should remand this case for an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction motion. The trial court rejected Blonda’s arguments concluding that no prejudice was shown. Both sides concede a Brady violation and we cannot say on this record that there was no prejudice to Blonda, especially given that trial counsel did not have the victim’s written statement recanting any wrongdoing by Blonda. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial based on the State’s failure to disclose M.L.’s two recanting statements in a timely manner. This appeal followed. We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that no prejudice was shown.