By: Derek Hawkins//April 29, 2019//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Casey M. Fisher
Case No.: 2017AP868
Officials: Kessler, P.J., Brennan and Dugan, JJ.
Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Casey M. Fisher appeals from an order denying without a hearing his second motion for a new trial. A jury convicted Fisher of armed robbery and first-degree intentional homicide for the October 26, 1993 murder of Yaser Mousa, a grocery store owner who was a friend of Fisher’s. Fisher was seen in Mousa’s vehicle at the store less than fifteen minutes before Mousa was found dead in his vehicle three blocks away. Witnesses testified that Fisher talked about the crime both before and after he committed it.
The State first argues that Fisher has not shown a “sufficient reason” for failing to raise this claim in his first appeal such that he can overcome Escalona’s procedural bar to successive motions. See WIS. STAT. § 974.06(4) and State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 184, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) (barring successive claims except for any claim that “for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in his original, supplemental or amended postconviction motions”).
Fisher argues against the procedural bar, saying he was unaware of the police report involving the drug house lead until after retaining his current postconviction counsel. We reject Fisher’s claim on its merits. Fisher argued that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to present evidence from the later-discovered police report about the drug house lead.
We conclude that Fisher is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance claim because this record “conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” See State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 309-10, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996) (citation omitted). There is no evidence linking the three men found in the drug house to the murder. Fisher argues in the alternative that it appears from the record that the real controversy was not fully tried and that he is therefore entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice. For the reasons that follow, it is apparent from the record that the real controversy was fully tried. Therefore, we affirm.