Criminal Procedure — successive appeals

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — successive appeals

Christopher D. Jones, pro se, appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief.[1] Jones filed prior postconviction motions and had a direct appeal; consequently, he attempts to avoid the prohibition against successive postconviction motions by alleging that his postconviction counsel was ineffective for not arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective. Jones claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct an adequate investigation of the discovery materials. According to Jones, if trial counsel had conducted an adequate investigation, counsel would have been able to impeach three of the State’s key witnesses. We reject Jones’s arguments and affirm. This opinion shall not be published.

2012AP2382 State v. Jones

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

Attorneys: For Appellant: Jones, Christopher D., pro se; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; O’Brien, Daniel J., Madison