By: Derek Hawkins//October 17, 2017//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Eric G. Perkins
Case No.: 2016AP811
Officials: Brennan, P.J., Brash and Dugan, JJ.
Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Eric G. Perkins appeals an order denying his collateral postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to second-degree reckless homicide and second-degree recklessly endangering safety, both as a party to a crime and with use of a dangerous weapon. To show that Perkins had a sufficient reason for not previously raising his claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel, Perkins was required of allege facts that, if true, would show that: (1) his postconviction counsel performed deficiently; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced him. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see also State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶9, 274 Wis. 2d 568, 682 N.W.2d 433 (a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim if he “alleges sufficient material facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief”). Perkins’ conclusory one sentence argument wholly fails to allege specific facts that, if true, would establish that counsel provided him with constitutionally ineffective representation. Perkins attempts to rectify his inadequate pleading by fleshing it out a bit on appeal. This he may not do. A defendant must allege facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief “within the four corners of the [postconviction motion] itself.” Allen, 274 Wis. 2d 568, ¶23. Therefore, we conclude that Perkins’ claim is barred by Escalona-Naranjo because he has not shown a sufficient reason for failing to previously raise his claim.