Court Error – Postconviction Relief

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Milton Eugene Warren

Case No.: 2020 WI 55

Focus: Court Error – Postconviction Relief

The petitioner, Milton Eugene Warren, seeks review of an unpublished order of the court of appeals denying his petition for habeas corpus. He filed the habeas petition after first unsuccessfully seeking Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2017-18) postconviction relief in the circuit court. In both the habeas petition and the postconviction motion, Warren averred ineffective assistance of counsel for alleged errors taking place after conviction by the failure to raise a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective.

Presented with Warren’s postconviction motion, the circuit court concluded that Warren had sought relief in the wrong forum. Pursuant to State v. Starks, 2013 WI 69, 349 Wis. 2d 274, 833 N.W.2d 146, it determined that rather than filing his postconviction motion in the circuit court, Warren should instead have filed a habeas petition in the court of appeals. Following the circuit court’s direction, Warren subsequently filed a habeas petition in the court of appeals. The court of appeals denied the petition, concluding that Warren did not follow the correct procedural mechanism. Specifically, it determined that he should have filed an appeal of the circuit court’s denial of his postconviction motion rather than a habeas petition.

Warren contends that the circuit court and court of appeals decisions leave him effectively without a forum for resolution of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that the proper forum for the claim is in the circuit court. Further, he asserts, and the State agrees, that language from Starks should be withdrawn because it contradicts the established framework for determining the proper forum for his claim.

We reaffirm that the Knight/Rothering framework remains the correct methodology for determining the appropriate forum for a criminal defendant to file a claim relating to the alleged ineffectiveness of counsel after conviction. Both Knight and Rothering premised their decisions on the forum in which the alleged ineffectiveness took place. Applying this framework, we conclude that the circuit court is the appropriate forum for Warren’s claim that postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to assert an ineffective trial counsel claim. Further, we withdraw paragraph four of Starks because it is contradictory to this conclusion. Additionally, to the extent language in paragraphs 30-31, 34-35, and throughout Starks contradicts our conclusion in this case, it is also withdrawn. Finally, we also modify paragraph 41 of Starks.

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the court of appeals with directions.

Reversed and remanded

Concur:

Dissent:

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.