Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Joshua Brust appeals an order denying his motion for sentence modification and an order denying postconviction relief pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 974.06. He raises four substantive claims: two related to the vacation of a Deferred Guilty Plea Agreement (DGPA) and two related to sentencing, and also argues his postconviction attorney was ineffective for failing to raise these issues. We conclude postconviction counsel did not perform deficiently. In many instances, the law at the time of the relevant event did not support the argument Brust wishes his counsel would have made. In addition, many of counsel’s decisions were strategic and are given great deference.

Brust also claims recent research about adolescent brain development is a new factor entitling him to resentencing, an argument foreclosed by State v. McDermott, 2012 WI App 14, ¶¶16-22, 339 Wis. 2d 316, 810 N.W.2d 237, review denied, 2012 WI 106, 343 Wis. 2d 554, 820 N.W.2d 430. Brust is not entitled to relief, and we affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2012AP2353 State v. Brust

Dist III, Washburn County, Harrington, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Henak, Robert R., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Wellman, Sally L., Madison; Frost, Thomas H., Shell Lake