Ineffective Assistance of Counsel-Strickland v. Washington Standard

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Martez Columbus Fennell

Case No.: 2023AP000634

Officials: White, C.J., Geenen, and Colón, JJ.

Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel-Strickland v. Washington Standard

Fennell appealed the denial of his pro se postconviction motion under Wis. Stat. § 974.06, alleging ineffective assistance of both trial and postconviction counsel. Fennell was convicted of first-degree reckless homicide with a dangerous weapon and acquitted of a firearm possession charge. His initial postconviction motion, filed by counsel, claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of incriminating text messages. That motion was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal.

In his new motion, Fennell raised additional ineffective assistance claims, including trial counsel’s failure to suppress statements, physical evidence, and alleged errors in jury instructions. He also claimed postconviction counsel was ineffective for not raising these issues and for inadequately presenting the original suppression argument. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing.

The Court of Appeals found that Fennell failed to show a “sufficient reason” for not raising these claims earlier, as required under State v. Escalona-Naranjo. His assertion that his new claims were “clearly stronger” than previously raised claims was conclusory and lacked factual support. The court also ruled that the claim regarding suppression of text messages had already been litigated and could not be relitigated under State v. Witkowski. Since Fennell failed to show deficient performance by postconviction counsel, the court did not reach the prejudice prong of the Strickland standard.

The court concluded that Fennell’s motion was procedurally barred.

Affirmed.

Decided 07/29/25

Full Text