Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal — ineffective assistance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 12, 2012//

Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal — ineffective assistance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 12, 2012//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal — ineffective assistance

Matthew J. Laughrin appeals the judgment, entered upon his guilty pleas, convicting him of second-degree reckless homicide, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.06(1); possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.41(1m)(h)1.; and possession of Suboxone with intent to deliver, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.41(1m)(b) (2009-10). He also appeals the order denying his postconviction motion. Laughrin argues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas; (2) the trial court erred in denying his postconviction motion, which argued that trial counsel was ineffective; (3) the trial court applied the incorrect definition of “prejudice” in denying his postconviction motion; and (4) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis to withdraw the guilty pleas. We reject his arguments and affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP1600-CR State v. Laughrin

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

Attorneys: For Appellant: Jensen, Jeffrey W., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; St. John, Rebecca Rapp, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests