By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 15, 2010//
Criminal Procedure
Ineffective assistance
Ralph Hoak appeals from a judgment imposing sentence after the revocation of probation and from the order denying his postconviction motion for resentencing. He argues that the sentence was based on inaccurate information and on information used in violation of his right against self-incrimination, that imposition of the maximum consecutive terms is unduly harsh, that the charges were multiplicitous making consecutive terms inappropriate, and that the sentence was not fully explained. He also claims he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel to the extent that any of his appellate issues were waived by the failure to object at sentencing.
We conclude that Hoak is entitled to a Machner hearing on his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the information used in violation of his right against self-incrimination. We do not address Hoak’s claim that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to inaccurate information at sentencing but leave it to the trial court to determine whether the Machner hearing needs to address that claim. We summarily reject Hoak’s other appellate issues as a basis for relief. We affirm the judgment because it is not known whether Hoak is entitled to resentencing. We reverse the order denying his postconviction motion and remand for the purpose of conducting the required hearing. This opinion will not be published.
2009AP3161-CR State v. Hoak
Dist II, Waukesha County, Van de Water, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys: For Appellant: Grass, Gary, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Wellman, Sally L., Madison; Schimel, Brad, Waukesha