Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Johnny K. Pinder, pro se, appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Pinder contends that he received ineffective assistance from his postconviction/appellate lawyer, Joseph Cincotta. Pinder contends that Attorney Cincotta should have raised the following issues during his direct appeal: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to convict Pinder of misappropriation of identifying information with respect to two of the victims; (2) that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to request a limiting jury instruction with respect to other acts evidence; (3) that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to a police officer’s testimony that some of the checks found at the time of Pinder’s arrest were taken from the owner in a burglary; (4) that his trial lawyer was ineffective for making unnecessary concessions in his opening argument; and (5) that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s reference during opening argument to a victim who did not testify. We affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2011AP415 State v. Pinder

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

Attorneys: For Appellant: Pinder, Johnny K., pro se; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., pro se; Pray, Eileen W., Madison