Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Annette Morales-Rodriguez appeals a judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting her of two counts of first-degree intentional homicide with the use of a dangerous weapon, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.01(1)(a) & (b) and 939.63(1)(b) -*(2011-12), and an order denying her postconviction motion seeking a new trial based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Morales-Rodriguez contends the trial court erred when it denied, without a hearing, her motion alleging she was denied her structural constitutional right to have the attorney of her choice after her three attorneys, who originally volunteered to represent her pro bono, withdrew from the case due to potential conflicts of interest. She also contends that the three attorneys’ withdrawal from her representation constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Morales-Rodriguez forfeited her right to appeal the right to counsel of her choice by not raising this issue earlier, and her motion did not allege facts sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2014AP1438-CR State v. Morales-Rodriguez

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Borowski, J., Cane, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Pinix, Matthew S., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; O’Brien, Daniel J., Madison

Full Text