Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
42 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 29 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2025“A hearing on a postconviction motion is required only when the movant states sufficient material facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief.” State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶14 , 274 Wis. 2d 568 , 682 N.W.2d 433 . “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” a circuit 3 No. 2023AP1408 court may deny a postconviction motion without a hearing. 2025“A hearing on a postconviction motion is required only when the movant states sufficient material facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief.” State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶14 , 274 Wis. 2d 568 , 682 N.W.2d 433 . “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” a circuit 3 No. 2023AP1408 court may deny a postconviction motion without a hearing. | 8 | 25 |
State v. Bentleygreen2 sentences2022“Whether a motion alleges facts which, if true, would entitle a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo.” State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” the trial court has discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing. 2022“Whether a motion alleges facts which, if true, would entitle a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo.” State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” the trial court has discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing. | 4 | 8 |
State v. Andres Romero-Georganagreen2 sentences2023See State v. Romero-Georgana, 2014 WI 83, ¶71 , 360 Wis. 2d 522 , 849 N.W.2d 668 . ¶7 We review a circuit court’s decision to deny a postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing de novo, independently determining whether the facts alleged in the motion would entitle the defendant to relief. 2022See Romero-Georgana, 360 Wis. 2d 522, ¶71 (affirming the circuit court’s decision to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing because the motion “failed to sufficiently allege facts that, if true, would entitle [the defendant] to relief”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Theophilous Ruffingreen2 sentences2023However, the court retains discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing if the motion “fails to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of fact, presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” State v. Roberson, 2006 WI 80, ¶43 , 292 Wis. 2d 280 , 717 N.W.2d 111 (citations omitted); see also State v. Ruffin, 2022 WI 34, ¶¶28, 35 , 401 Wis. 2d 619 , 974 N.W.2d 432 . ¶55 Where, as here, the circuit court has declined to conduct a Machner hearing, this court reviews de novo whether the postconvicti 2023However, the court retains discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing if the motion “fails to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of fact, presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” State v. Roberson, 2006 WI 80, ¶43 , 292 Wis. 2d 280 , 717 N.W.2d 111 (citations omitted); see also State v. Ruffin, 2022 WI 34, ¶¶28, 35 , 401 Wis. 2d 619 , 974 N.W.2d 432 . ¶55 Where, as here, the circuit court has declined to conduct a Machner hearing, this court reviews de novo whether the postconvicti | 1 | 2 |
State v. Balliettegreen2 sentences2024State v. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, ¶18 , 336 Wis. 2d 358 , 805 N.W.2d 334 . ¶20 Here, as we now explain, the record conclusively establishes that Thomas’s current postconviction motion is procedurally barred by WIS. 2024State v. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, ¶18 , 336 Wis. 2d 358 , 805 N.W.2d 334 . ¶20 Here, as we now explain, the record conclusively establishes that Thomas’s current postconviction motion is procedurally barred by WIS. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jeningagreen1 sentence2025See Jeninga, 386 Wis. 2d 336, ¶11 . ¶23 As Benford’s allegations were insufficient to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, it was within the circuit court’s discretion to deny the postconviction motion without a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lovegreen2 sentences2025Allen, 274 Wis. 2d 568, ¶23 ; see also State v. Love, 2005 WI 116, ¶27 , 284 Wis. 2d 111 , 700 N.W.2d 62 . “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” the trial court has discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing. 2025Allen, 274 Wis. 2d 568, ¶23 ; see also State v. Love, 2005 WI 116, ¶27 , 284 Wis. 2d 111 , 700 N.W.2d 62 . “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” the trial court has discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jorgensengreen1 sentence2023See id. at 169-70 . ¶26 Finally, although Bye contends he was entitled to a hearing on his postconviction motion, the circuit court may deny a postconviction motion without a hearing if the motion presents only conclusory allegations or if the record otherwise conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief. 11 No. 2021AP1520-CR See State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶9 , 274 Wis. 2d 568 , 682 N.W.2d 433 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pettitgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (rejecting undeveloped and unsupported arguments). 8 No. 2019AP1046-CR “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” the circuit court may deny a postconviction motion without a hearing. 2021See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (rejecting undeveloped and unsupported arguments). 8 No. 2019AP1046-CR “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” the circuit court may deny a postconviction motion without a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2021See State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 128 , 449 N.W.2d 845 (1990). ¶42 “[T]he [trial] court must hold a hearing when the defendant has made a legally sufficient postconviction motion, and has the discretion to grant or deny an evidentiary hearing even when the postconviction motion is legally insufficient.” State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶12 , 274 Wis. 2d 568 , 682 N.W.2d 433 . “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” the tri 2021See State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 128 , 449 N.W.2d 845 (1990). ¶42 “[T]he [trial] court must hold a hearing when the defendant has made a legally sufficient postconviction motion, and has the discretion to grant or deny an evidentiary hearing even when the postconviction motion is legally insufficient.” State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶12 , 274 Wis. 2d 568 , 682 N.W.2d 433 . “[I]f the motion does not raise facts sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” the tri | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Larry L. Jackson
green
2 sentences2026Jackson appealed, and our supreme court reversed and remanded, concluding that a Machner hearing was required.2 Jackson I, 405 Wis. 2d 458, ¶1 . ¶5 At the Machner hearing, trial counsel said that she had represented defendants in hundreds of trials during approximately 35 years as a criminal defense attorney. 2023“First, we assess whether the motion on its face alleges sufficient material and non-conclusory facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief.” Id. | 2 | 2023–2026 |
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar
green
2 sentences2022The court below determined only that Spencer pled facts sufficient to entitle him to a Machner hearing. 35 No. 2018AP942-CR Spencer, No. 2018AP942-CR, at ¶26 (citing Sholar, 381 Wis. 2d 560, ¶51 ). 2021State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶50 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2021–2022 |
State v. MacHner
green
2 sentences2024Whether the record conclusively shows that the defendant is not entitled to relief is 5 State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 12 Nos. 2023AP174-CR 2023AP175-CR 2023AP176-CR a question of law that this court reviews de novo. 2024Whether the record conclusively shows that the defendant is not entitled to relief is 5 State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 12 Nos. 2023AP174-CR 2023AP175-CR 2023AP176-CR a question of law that this court reviews de novo. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ziebart
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Roberson
green
2 sentences2023However, the court retains discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing if the motion “fails to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of fact, presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” State v. Roberson, 2006 WI 80, ¶43 , 292 Wis. 2d 280 , 717 N.W.2d 111 (citations omitted); see also State v. Ruffin, 2022 WI 34, ¶¶28, 35 , 401 Wis. 2d 619 , 974 N.W.2d 432 . ¶55 Where, as here, the circuit court has declined to conduct a Machner hearing, this court reviews de novo whether the postconvicti 2023However, the court retains discretion to deny a postconviction motion without a hearing if the motion “fails to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of fact, presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” State v. Roberson, 2006 WI 80, ¶43 , 292 Wis. 2d 280 , 717 N.W.2d 111 (citations omitted); see also State v. Ruffin, 2022 WI 34, ¶¶28, 35 , 401 Wis. 2d 619 , 974 N.W.2d 432 . ¶55 Where, as here, the circuit court has declined to conduct a Machner hearing, this court reviews de novo whether the postconvicti | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Nelson v. State
green
2 sentences2021We likewise do not consider this issue. 12 No. 2018AP2128-CR S.P.—was his intended target.6 Schmidt raised this argument in a postconviction motion following our 2018 order, and the circuit court denied Schmidt’s motion without a hearing, concluding that the statute did not require jury unanimity as to the identity of the saliva’s target. ¶28 We may uphold the dismissal of a postconviction motion without a hearing “if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” Nelson v. State, 54 Wis. 2d 489, 497-98 , 195 N.W.2d 629 (1972). 2021We likewise do not consider this issue. 12 No. 2018AP2128-CR S.P.—was his intended target.6 Schmidt raised this argument in a postconviction motion following our 2018 order, and the circuit court denied Schmidt’s motion without a hearing, concluding that the statute did not require jury unanimity as to the identity of the saliva’s target. ¶28 We may uphold the dismissal of a postconviction motion without a hearing “if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” Nelson v. State, 54 Wis. 2d 489, 497-98 , 195 N.W.2d 629 (1972). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.