Sufficiency of Evidence

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Alphonso Lamont Willis

Case No.: 2016AP791-CR

Officials: Brennan, P.J., Kessler and Dugan, JJ.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence

Alphonso Lamont Willis appeals the judgment convicting him of first-degree intentional homicide as party to a crime while armed with a dangerous weapon and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He also appeals the trial court’s orders denying his postconviction motions.

The issues before this court involve boot print evidence and the time of death of the victim. Willis raises four arguments in claiming that trial counsel was ineffective based on trial counsel’s failure to: (1) object during the prosecutor’s opening and closing arguments; (2) object during a detective’s trial testimony regarding Willis’s boots; (3) obtain an expert to rebut the State’s boot print evidence; and (4) introduce evidence of the victim’s time of death which, coupled with the testimony of a disinterested witness, would have challenged the State’s assertion that Willis killed the victim. Willis also contends that a new trial is required in the interest of justice for two reasons: (1) his boots were improperly admitted into evidence; and (2) the prosecutor’s opening and closing argument improperly suggested a match between the boot prints and his boots. Alternatively, Willis argues that forensic evidence from a “boot expert” that he offered with his postconviction motion is newly-discovered evidence warranting a new trial. Additionally, Willis argues that the trial court failed to adequately explain its sentence and the trial court violated his right to due process by informing the jury that he was a felon.

We affirm the trial court’s orders with respect to Willis’s arguments regarding (1) ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the admission of the boot evidence and the State’s argument about them in opening and closing, (2) a new trial in the interest of justice, (3) a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence, (4) sentencing, and (5) the reference to Willis as having been convicted of a felony. However, we reverse and remand for a Machner hearing on whether trial counsel was ineffective with respect to the failure to (1) obtain a witness to rebut the State’s boot print evidence, and (2) introduce evidence regarding the time of the victim’s death. For these reasons we remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.