Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Evidentiary Hearing

By: Derek Hawkins//January 21, 2020//

Evidentiary Hearing

By: Derek Hawkins//January 21, 2020//

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Antonio L. Bell

Case No.: 2018AP1593-CR; 2018AP1594-CR

Officials: Brash, P.J., Kessler and Fitzpatrick, JJ.

Focus: Evidentiary Hearing

Antonio L. Bell appeals his judgments of conviction for second-degree sexual assault of a child and third-degree sexual assault, as well as the order denying his postconviction motions. The victims in this case are Bell’s daughter, C.B., who was nine years old at the time the charges were filed, and his stepdaughter, S.E., who was fourteen. Bell pled no contest to these charges but maintained his innocence, stating that he entered the pleas to spare his children from having to testify at a trial.

After the assaults were reported, both girls tested positive for a sexually-transmitted disease—chlamydia. In his initial postconviction motion, Bell argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate S.E.’s boyfriend as a potential third-party perpetrator, because he was known to have tested positive for chlamydia, whereas there was no evidence that Bell ever had chlamydia.

In his supplemental postconviction motion, Bell argued the existence of newly discovered evidence relating to C.B. Prior to Bell entering his pleas, C.B. had recanted her statement that Bell had assaulted her. After he was sentenced, however, C.B. made a second, more detailed recantation: not only did she again state that Bell had not assaulted her, she declared that the perpetrator was actually S.E.’s boyfriend, and that the boyfriend had encouraged her to blame Bell for the assault.

The trial court denied both of Bell’s postconviction motions without granting hearings. It found that Bell had not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to investigate S.E.’s boyfriend because the court did not believe it was a viable third-party defense. The court also rejected Bell’s newly discovered evidence claim, stating that C.B. had made her first recantation prior to Bell entering his pleas, and thus the second recantation did not constitute new evidence. We conclude that Bell has demonstrated that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims. We therefore reverse and remand this matter for such a hearing before the trial court.

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests