Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Criminal Procedure – ineffective assistance

Criminal Procedure – ineffective assistance

Wisconsin Court of Appeals


Criminal Procedure – ineffective assistance

In 2006, a jury found William Martin guilty of robbery. See Wis. Stat. § 943.32(1). We affirmed Martin’s conviction on direct appeal. See State v. Martin, 2007AP1293-CR, unpublished per curiam (WI App Feb. 16, 2009). In August of 2011, Martin filed a Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion claiming that his trial and postconviction lawyer gave him constitutionally deficient representation. See State ex rel Rothering v. McCaughtry, 205 Wis. 2d 675, 682, 556 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Ct. App. 1996) (ineffective assistance of postconviction lawyer may be a sufficient reason for not having previously raised issues). The trial court denied the motion without holding a hearing under State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 286 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979) (hearing to determine whether lawyer gave a defendant ineffective assistance). Martin appeals pro se. We affirm. Publication in the official reports is not recommended.

2011AP2168 State v. Martin

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Dugan, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Martin, William, pro se; For Respondent: Balistreri, Thomas J., Madison; Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *