By: Derek Hawkins//June 8, 2016//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Michael S. Dengsavang
Case No.: 2015AP637-CR
Officials: Curley, P.J., Brennan and Brash, JJ.
Focus: Machner Hearing
Michael S. Dengsavang appeals from a judgment of conviction and the circuit court’s order denying postconviction relief. First, Dengsavang claims his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) opening the door to testimony on an excluded crime lab shoe print report; (2) failing to object to Detective Hudson’s shoe print testimony on evidentiary grounds of double hearsay and improper expert testimony; and (3) failing to expose exculpatory discrepancies in descriptions of the shooter. Additionally he claims that the trial court erred when it limited the scope of questioning at the Machner hearing by limiting testimony to the specific issue of opening the door to the shoe print report, thereby excluding testimony about the alleged discrepancies in descriptions of the shooter. The State responds that Dengsavang failed to show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient as to the first two claimed ineffective assistance issues: (1) opening the door on the shoe print report; and (2) failing to object to Detective Hudson’s shoe print testimony on evidentiary grounds. Further, even if he could show deficient performance, any such deficiency was not prejudicial. As to the third claimed ineffective representation issue—failure to expose the alleged description discrepancies—the State argues that this issue is not properly before us because Dengsavang abandoned this issue before his first appeal, and this court’s remand for a Machner hearing neither required a hearing on this issue nor permitted it. Thus the State contends that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony about the alleged discrepancies from the Machner hearing. We agree with the State and affirm.