By: Derek Hawkins//October 16, 2018//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Brinkley L. Bridges
Case No.: 2017AP2311-CR
Officials: Brennan, Brash and Dugan, JJ.
Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Brinkley L. Bridges appeals a judgment of conviction, entered on his guilty plea, for three felony drug counts and two felony gun counts. He moved unsuccessfully for plea withdrawal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, and he appeals the order denying his postconviction motion without a hearing. Bridges argues that his attorney rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to argue that the warrant for the tracking of his cell phone was based on an affidavit that did not establish probable cause—specifically that it contained no “statement showing personal knowledge that Bridges used this phone to conduct illegal drug transactions”; and (2) failing to argue that all the evidence obtained as a result of the warrant was tainted and should be suppressed. Bridges seeks an evidentiary hearing on his claim.
We conclude that Bridges has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the facts in the affidavit were clearly insufficient to support probable cause. See WIS. STAT. § 968.373(3)(e) (2015-16). 2 See State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, ¶8, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437. We also conclude that the warrant-issuing magistrate “had a substantial basis to conclude that the probable cause existed.” See State v. Ward, 2000 WI 3, ¶21, 231 Wis. 2d 723, 604 N.W.2d 517. Consequently, there is no basis to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of the search. We therefore affirm.