By: Derek Hawkins//March 26, 2019//
WI Court of Appeals – District III
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. John D. Bullock
Case No.: 2018AP1405
Officials: Hruz, Seidl and Dugan, JJ.
Focus: Court Error – Abuse of Discretion
John Bullock appeals an order that denied, without a hearing, his companion motions for postconviction discovery and for other postconviction relief. Upon our independent review of the record, we conclude the allegations in each of the motions are insufficient to warrant a hearing. In 2014, following the affirmance of his conviction on direct appeal, Bullock filed a pro se motion pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2017-18), raising several claims of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. The circuit court denied the motion on the ground that the claims were procedurally barred.
In 2018, Bullock filed two additional postconviction motions with the assistance of counsel. In one of these motions, Bullock sought to have “previously untested items of evidence” submitted to Bullock’s expert for analysis. In the other motion, Bullock sought a new trial based upon two new allegations of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and one claim of newly discovered evidence. In the alternative, Bullock sought resentencing based upon the same alleged facts underlying his claim of newly discovered evidence. The circuit court denied both of these motions without a hearing and without providing any explanation of the reasons for its decision. Bullock appeals the circuit court’s order, contending that the court failed to demonstrate a proper exercise of discretion and that he was entitled to a hearing on the motions.