2009AP419 State v. Canady

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Ineffective assistance

Robert L. Canady, pro se, appeals from orders denying his postconviction motions, filed under Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2007-08) and State ex rel. Rothering v. McCaughtry, 205 Wis. 2d 675, 556 N.W.2d 136 (Ct. App. 1996) (per curiam). Canady argues that his postconviction counsel was ineffective because he did not argue that Canady’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress. In addition, Canady argues that his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sentence he received as violative of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The postconviction court denied the first claim after a Machner hearing and denied the Apprendi claim on its face. We affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2009AP419 State v. Canady

Dist I, Milwaukee County, McMahon, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Canady, Robert L., pro se; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Murphy, Anne Christenson, Madison

Full Text