Criminal Procedure — restraints during trial

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 1, 2012//

Listen to this article

Allen Umentum appeals a judgment of conviction, entered on a jury verdict, for invasion of privacy and entry into a locked room, both with the repeater enhancement. He also appeals an order denying postconviction relief. On appeal, Umentum argues the circuit court’s standing order, which required him to be restrained at trial without a particularized determination as to the necessity of the restraint, violated his constitutional rights. He also contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s order and he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice. We reject Umentum’s arguments and affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2011AP2622-CR State v. Umentum

Dist III, Brown County, Atkinson, J., Hoover, P.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Heckes, Roberta A., Adell; For Respondent: Lasee, Lawrence J., Green Bay; Weber, Gregory M., Madison; Liegeois, Beau, Green Bay

Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event