By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 18, 2010//
Criminal Procedure
Ineffective assistance; exculpatory evidence; new trials
Andre D. Tankson appeals from a judgment of conviction for kidnapping, aggravated battery, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and one count of second-degree sexual assault by use of force, and of the July 20, 2009 order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Tankson argues that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to him, that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and that he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice. We disagree, and affirm the judgment and order of the circuit court. This opinion will not be published.
2009AP2069-CR State v. Tankson
Dist IV, Dane County, McNamara, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys: For Appellant: Sommers, Joseph L., Oregon; For Respondent: Moeller, Marguerite M., Madison; Stephan, Corey C., Madison