Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Procedure — self-representation — prosecutorial misconduct

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 19, 2012//

Criminal Procedure — self-representation — prosecutorial misconduct

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 19, 2012//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — self-representation — prosecutorial misconduct

Steven Johnson appeals an order that denied his motion for postconviction relief from convictions for first-degree recklessly endangering safety, possession of a firearm by a felon, endangering safety by reckless use of a firearm, and carrying a concealed weapon. Johnson raises the following issues on appeal:[1] (1) the possession-of-a-firearm-by-a-felon statute is unconstitutionally overbroad; (2) the endangering-safety-by-reckless-use-of-a-firearm statute is unconstitutionally vague; (3) Johnson was denied the right to the attorney of his choice at the preliminary hearing; (4) Johnson was denied his right to self-representation at trial; (5) counsel was not authorized to stipulate as to Johnson’s identity in a photograph; (6) evidence seized following Johnson’s warrantless arrest should have been suppressed; (7) the State produced perjured testimony and withheld exculpatory evidence at trial; (8) Johnson did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into a stipulation as to his prior felony conviction; (9) there was insufficient evidence to show that Johnson “went armed” on the charge of carrying a concealed weapon; (10) evidence of Johnson’s prior felony conviction should have been “foreclosed”; (11) there was insufficient evidence to establish the prior felony conviction, possession, or identity elements on the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon; (12) there was insufficient evidence to show that Johnson discharged a weapon “into” a vehicle on the charge of reckless endangerment; and (13) Johnson is entitled to damages against the appellate judges on the court that denied his writ of habeas corpus immediately following his conviction. For the reasons discussed below, we reject each of Johnson’s contentions and affirm the decision of the circuit court. This opinion will not be published.

2009AP2444 State v. Johnson

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

Attorneys: For Appellant: Johnson, Steven Deangelo, pro se; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Pray, Eileen W., Madison

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

Case Digests

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests