2010AP1819-CR State v. Brinson

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Ineffective assistance; new trials

Robert L. Brinson appeals the judgment convicting him of conspiracy to commit identity theft, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 939.31 and 943.203(2)(a) (2007-08). He also appeals the order denying his postconviction motion. Brinson contends that the trial court erred in denying his postconviction request for an evidentiary hearing and in denying a new trial because his postconviction motion sufficiently alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective. Specifically, Brinson argues that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to move in limine to exclude evidence of Brinson’s criminal record at trial; (2) asking a witness an open-ended question, the answer to which referred to Brinson’s probation or parole agent; (3) failing to move for a mistrial each time “Brinson’s record or status with the corrections department was brought up”; (4) failing to strike Juror No. 15; and (5) failing to adequately investigate defenses and failing to allow Brinson to participate in his defense. He also contends that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting the jury to hear testimony regarding his criminal record. Brinson further argues that we ought to grant him a new trial in the interests of justice. We disagree with Brinson’s contentions and affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP1819-CR State v. Brinson

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Cimpl, J., Curley, P.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Bugenhagen, Paul , Jr., Waukesha; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Weber, Gregory M., Madison

Full Text