Chapter 51 Commitment-Extension Proceeding – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: Winnebago County v. J.M.

Case No.: 2018 WI 37

Focus: Chapter 51 Commitment-Extension Proceeding – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

This review involves a Chapter 51 commitment-extension proceeding. The unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirmed an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County, Karen L. Seifert, Judge, denying J.M.’s motion for post-disposition relief. J.M. seeks relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Three questions are presented to this court: First, does J.M. have a statutory right to effective assistance of counsel at a Chapter 51 commitment-extension proceeding, and if so, what standard should apply in evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel? Second, did the failure of J.M.’s trial counsel to object to, prevent the admission of, or request a curative instruction regarding evidence presented to the jury of J.M.’s status as a prisoner (including J.M.’s wearing prison garb) constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? Third, is J.M. entitled to a new Chapter 51 commitment-extension proceeding in the interest of justice because the jury was repeatedly exposed to evidence of J.M.’s status as a prisoner and the circuit court gave conflicting jury instructions?

We respond as follows to these questions: First, J.M. had a statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in his Chapter 51 commitment-extension hearing. The legislature has provided that the subject of every civil commitment proceeding is entitled to be “represented by adversary counsel.” Wis. Stat. § 51.20(3) (2015-16). When the legislature provides the right to be “represented by counsel,” the legislature intends that right to include effective assistance of counsel. In re M.D.(S)., 168 Wis. 2d 995, 1004, 485 N.W.2d 52 (1992). The standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), is the correct standard for evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a commitment-extension hearing.

Second, given the overwhelming evidence presented by Winnebago County at the commitment-extension proceeding, J.M. has not shown that a reasonable probability exists that the result of the proceeding would have been different had his trial counsel’s performance not been allegedly deficient regarding J.M.’s appearance in prison garb. Third, J.M. has not established that he is entitled to a new trial under Wis. Stat. § 751.06 on the ground that his wearing of prison garb during the trial so distracted the jury “that the real controversy [was] not [] fully tried,” and justice was miscarried. Moreover, the circuit court’s conflicting jury instructions likewise do not entitle J.M. to a new trial in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

Affirmed

Concur: A.W. BRADLEY, J., concurs (opinion filed).

Dissent:
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.