ineffective assistance claim in Wisconsin

2026To demonstrate that counsel’s assistance was ineffective, the defendant must establish both “that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial.” State v. Breitzman, 2017 WI 100, ¶37 , 378 Wis. 2d 431 , 904 N.W.2d 93 . “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2026To demonstrate that counsel’s assistance was ineffective, the defendant must establish both “that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial.” State v. Breitzman, 2017 WI 100, ¶37 , 378 Wis. 2d 431 , 904 N.W.2d 93 . “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2026To demonstrate that counsel’s assistance was ineffective, the defendant must establish both “that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial.” State v. Breitzman, 2017 WI 100, ¶37 , 378 Wis. 2d 431 , 904 N.W.2d 93 . “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2026To demonstrate that counsel’s assistance was ineffective, the defendant must establish both “that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial.” State v. Breitzman, 2017 WI 100, ¶37 , 378 Wis. 2d 431 , 904 N.W.2d 93 . “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2026Id. ¶56 An evidentiary hearing, commonly referred to as a Machner hearing, “is a prerequisite for consideration of an ineffective assistance claim.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶50 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 ; see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).

2026Id. ¶56 An evidentiary hearing, commonly referred to as a Machner hearing, “is a prerequisite for consideration of an ineffective assistance claim.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶50 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 ; see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).

2026Id. ¶56 An evidentiary hearing, commonly referred to as a Machner hearing, “is a prerequisite for consideration of an ineffective assistance claim.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶50 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 ; see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).

2026Id. ¶56 An evidentiary hearing, commonly referred to as a Machner hearing, “is a prerequisite for consideration of an ineffective assistance claim.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶50 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 ; see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).

2023State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 768 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999).

2023State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 768 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999).

2023To show prejudice in the context of a request for plea withdrawal, a defendant must demonstrate “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 312 (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)). ¶13 Our review of an ineffective assistance claim presents a mixed question of fact and law.

2021See Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 312 (explaining that the prejudice prong of the ineffective-assistance analysis requires a defendant to show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” (citation omitted)). 4 The video is not in the appellate record. 7 No. 2020AP207-CR ¶21 Edwards also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the video evidence or to testimony that the video showed Edwards was the shooter.

2019See Allen, 274 Wis. 2d 568, ¶27 . ¶23 To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial.

2018"A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. ¶32 We review an ineffective assistance claim as a mixed question of law and fact.

2022State v. Maloney, 2005 WI 74, ¶44 , 281 Wis. 2d 595 , 698 N.W.2d 583 . ¶23 Like the circuit court, we conclude that Gondik’s choice of trial strategy did not constitute deficient performance.

2022State v. Maloney, 2005 WI 74, ¶44 , 281 Wis. 2d 595 , 698 N.W.2d 583 . ¶23 Like the circuit court, we conclude that Gondik’s choice of trial strategy did not constitute deficient performance.

2020See State v. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236, ¶5 , 248 Wis. 2d 505 , 635 N.W.2d 807 . “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2020See State v. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236, ¶5 , 248 Wis. 2d 505 , 635 N.W.2d 807 . “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2026Id. ¶56 An evidentiary hearing, commonly referred to as a Machner hearing, “is a prerequisite for consideration of an ineffective assistance claim.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶50 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 ; see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).

2026Id. ¶56 An evidentiary hearing, commonly referred to as a Machner hearing, “is a prerequisite for consideration of an ineffective assistance claim.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶50 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 ; see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).

2020See State v. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236, ¶5 , 248 Wis. 2d 505 , 635 N.W.2d 807 ; State v. Kimbrough, 2001 WI App 138, ¶27 , 246 Wis. 2d 648 , 630 N.W.2d 752 (determination of counsel’s effectiveness is a question of law reviewed de novo). ¶55 “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2020See State v. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236, ¶5 , 248 Wis. 2d 505 , 635 N.W.2d 807 ; State v. Kimbrough, 2001 WI App 138, ¶27 , 246 Wis. 2d 648 , 630 N.W.2d 752 (determination of counsel’s effectiveness is a question of law reviewed de novo). ¶55 “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2023These reasonable strategic determinations effectively foreclose an ineffective assistance claim based upon pretrial challenges to Lockwood’s anticipated testimony.8 See State v. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, ¶26 , 336 Wis. 2d 358 , 805 N.W.2d 334 . ¶39 Koenig’s attorney’s handling of Lockwood’s testimony during the trial was likewise constitutionally sufficient.

2023These reasonable strategic determinations effectively foreclose an ineffective assistance claim based upon pretrial challenges to Lockwood’s anticipated testimony.8 See State v. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, ¶26 , 336 Wis. 2d 358 , 805 N.W.2d 334 . ¶39 Koenig’s attorney’s handling of Lockwood’s testimony during the trial was likewise constitutionally sufficient.

2023More recently, our supreme court stated that “[a] Machner hearing is a prerequisite for consideration of an ineffective assistance claim.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶50 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 . ¶24 As this court has observed, a Machner hearing “is important not only to give trial counsel a chance to explain his or her actions, but also to allow the [circuit] court, which is in the best position to judge counsel’s performance, to rule on the motion.” State v. Curtis, 218 Wis. 2d 550, 554 , 582 N.W.2d 409 7 No. 2022AP1703 (Ct. App. 1998).

2023More recently, our supreme court stated that “[a] Machner hearing is a prerequisite for consideration of an ineffective assistance claim.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶50 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 . ¶24 As this court has observed, a Machner hearing “is important not only to give trial counsel a chance to explain his or her actions, but also to allow the [circuit] court, which is in the best position to judge counsel’s performance, to rule on the motion.” State v. Curtis, 218 Wis. 2d 550, 554 , 582 N.W.2d 409 7 No. 2022AP1703 (Ct. App. 1998).

2019To prove deficiency, "the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" ... [and] overcome the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." State v. Romero-Georgana , 2014 WI 83 , ¶¶39-40, 360 Wis. 2d 522 , 849 N.W.2d 668 (citations omitted). ¶10 We review the denial of an ineffective assistance claim as a mixed question of fact and law.

2019To prove deficiency, "the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" ... [and] overcome the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." State v. Romero-Georgana , 2014 WI 83 , ¶¶39-40, 360 Wis. 2d 522 , 849 N.W.2d 668 (citations omitted). ¶10 We review the denial of an ineffective assistance claim as a mixed question of fact and law.

2026Id. at 659-60 . ¶59 This exception to the Strickland analysis, however, is “exceedingly narrow.” United States v. Theodore, 468 F.3d 52, 56 (1st Cir. 2006).

2026Id. at 659-60 . ¶59 This exception to the Strickland analysis, however, is “exceedingly narrow.” United States v. Theodore, 468 F.3d 52, 56 (1st Cir. 2006).

2022See Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 646-47 . ¶35 Turning to the ineffective assistance analysis, we conclude that the record conclusively shows that Carrao suffered no prejudice within the meaning of the applicable standard for ineffective assistance of counsel and, consequently, that the trial court appropriately denied Carrao’s motion without a hearing.

2019See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).

2021State v. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, ¶57 , 261 Wis. 2d 633 , 660 N.W.2d 12 . 5 No. 2019AP2177-CR ¶15 We need not address both elements of the ineffective assistance test if the defendant fails to make a sufficient showing on one of them.

2021State v. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, ¶57 , 261 Wis. 2d 633 , 660 N.W.2d 12 . 5 No. 2019AP2177-CR ¶15 We need not address both elements of the ineffective assistance test if the defendant fails to make a sufficient showing on one of them.

2022State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 128 , 449 N.W.2d 845 (1990). ¶26 Pico claims his postconviction lawyer should have raised the newly- discovered-evidence claim in his original postconviction motion and on direct appeal as an alternative to the ineffective-assistance claim.

2022State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 128 , 449 N.W.2d 845 (1990). ¶26 Pico claims his postconviction lawyer should have raised the newly- discovered-evidence claim in his original postconviction motion and on direct appeal as an alternative to the ineffective-assistance claim.

2021Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, ¶18 , 264 Wis. 2d 571 , 665 N.W.2d 305 .

2018See id. ¶ 14 A defendant must satisfy both prongs of the ineffective assistance test; we need not address both if the defendant fails to make a sufficient showing on one.

2019Id. ¶22 To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

2018Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ("[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one."); State v. Carter , 2010 WI 40 , ¶ 21, 324 Wis. 2d 640 , 782 N.W.2d 695 ("to succeed on [a] claim of ineffective assistance *104 of counsel, [the defendant] must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test."). 1.

2023To show prejudice in the context of a request for plea withdrawal, a defendant must demonstrate “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 312 (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)). ¶13 Our review of an ineffective assistance claim presents a mixed question of fact and law.

2019To show prejudice in the context of a request for plea withdrawal, a defendant must demonstrate "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." Bentley , 201 Wis. 2d at 312 (quoting Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52 , 59 (1985) ). ¶8 Our review of an ineffective assistance claim presents a mixed question of fact and law.