Postconviction Relief-Procedural Bars

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Omar J. Smith

Case No.: 2023AP002179

Officials: Donald, C.J., Colón, P.J., and Geenen, J.

Focus: Postconviction Relief-Procedural Bars

In a postconviction motion, Smith argued that newly discovered evidence showed a detective who testified at his suppression hearing had engaged in misconduct and provided false testimony in an unrelated case. Smith also alleged judicial bias, challenged the voluntariness of his custodial statement, claimed ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel, and argued that the circuit court erred by denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing.

The Court of Appeals concluded that Smith failed to establish newly discovered evidence because the materials from the unrelated case did not show that the detective engaged in misconduct or intentionally testified falsely. At most, they revealed inconsistencies that could serve only as impeachment evidence, which is insufficient to warrant a new trial. The court further concluded that Smith’s judicial bias claim was procedurally barred because he failed to demonstrate that postconviction counsel was ineffective for not raising it earlier or that the claim was clearly stronger than those previously pursued. Smith’s renewed challenge to the admissibility of his custodial statement was likewise barred because the issue had already been litigated on direct appeal and could not be relitigated under a new legal theory. Finally, the court concluded that the circuit court properly denied the motion without a hearing because the claims were either meritless or procedurally barred.

Affirmed.

Decided 07/07/26

Full Text