Adam Hill appeals a judgment convicting him of making a bomb threat. He also appeals an order denying postconviction relief. Hill contends that he is entitled to a new trial because he was convicted on the basis of an in-court identification that was tainted by impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures. He further argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Hill also claims that he should be given a new trial because the court ignored its own ruling restricting the composition of the jury venire. We reject his arguments and affirm the judgment and order. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist III, Pepin County, Wing, J., Hoover, P.J.
For Appellant: Dennis Schertz, Hudson
For Respondent: James Freimuth, Madison, et al.