defendant to an evidentiary hearing in Wisconsin

23 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 10 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Bentleygreen wis · 1996 · cited in 13 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2019–2023 2 sentences 2023“A defendant must do more than merely allege that he would have pled differently; such an allegation must be supported by objective factual assertions.” Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 313 . 2022See State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996).	10	13
State v. Allengreen wis · 2004 · cited in 4 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2018–2026 2 sentences 2024To entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction motion must allege “sufficient material facts—e.g., who, what, where, when, why, and how—that, if true, would entitle [the defendant] to the relief [the defendant] seeks.” State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶¶2, 23 , 274 Wis. 2d 568 , 682 N.W.2d 433 . 2024To entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction motion must allege “sufficient material facts—e.g., who, what, where, when, why, and how—that, if true, would entitle [the defendant] to the relief [the defendant] seeks.” State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶¶2, 23 , 274 Wis. 2d 568 , 682 N.W.2d 433 .	3	4
State v. Howellgreen wis · 2007 · cited in 3 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2009–2023 2 sentences 2023To entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing under Nelson/Bentley, “a defendant first must allege sufficient, nonconclusory facts in his motion that, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Howell, 301 Wis. 2d 350, ¶76 . 2023To entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing under Nelson/Bentley, “a defendant first must allege sufficient, nonconclusory facts in his motion that, if true, would entitle him to relief.” State v. Howell, 2007 WI 75, ¶76 , 301 Wis. 2d 350 , 734 N.W.2d 48 .	1	3
State v. Escalona-Naranjogreen wis · 1994 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 2 sentences 2026The State maintains the court did not err because Jackson’s claims are procedurally barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 176, 185 , 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), and State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990 , 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶9 Whether a postconviction motion alleged “sufficient material facts” to entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing on the motion is a question of law we review de novo. 2026The State maintains the court did not err because Jackson’s claims are procedurally barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 176, 185 , 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), and State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990 , 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶9 Whether a postconviction motion alleged “sufficient material facts” to entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing on the motion is a question of law we review de novo.	1	1
State v. Pludegreen wis · 2008 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). ¶14 “The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based on newly[]discovered evidence is committed to the circuit court’s discretion.” State v. Plude, 2008 WI 58, ¶31 , 310 Wis. 2d 28 , 750 N.W.2d 42 . 2021See State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). ¶14 “The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based on newly[]discovered evidence is committed to the circuit court’s discretion.” State v. Plude, 2008 WI 58, ¶31 , 310 Wis. 2d 28 , 750 N.W.2d 42 .	1	1
State v. Jacobsgreen wisctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020See State v. Jacobs, 2012 WI App 104, ¶24 , 344 Wis. 2d 142 , 822 N.W.2d 885 . 2020See State v. Jacobs, 2012 WI App 104, ¶24 , 344 Wis. 2d 142 , 822 N.W.2d 885 .	1	1
Nelson v. Stategreen wis · 1972 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See Howell, 301 Wis. 2d 350, ¶¶ 76-77. "[I]f the defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusionary allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief, the trial court may in the exercise of its legal discretion deny the motion without a hearing." Howell, 301 Wis. 2d 350, ¶ 75 (quoting Nelson, 54 Wis. 2d at 497-98 ).	1	1
State v. Manngreen wis · 1985 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See also State v. Mann, 123 Wis. 2d 375, 385-89 , 367 N.W.2d 209 (1985) (extending Franks to material omissions of fact that are the equivalent of deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth). 2005See also State v. Mann, 123 Wis. 2d 375, 385-89 , 367 N.W.2d 209 (1985) (extending Franks to material omissions of fact that are the equivalent of deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth).	1	1
State v. Lukasikgreen wisctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 2 sentences 1990See State v. Lukasik, 115 Wis. 2d 134, 140 , 340 N.W.2d 62, 65 (Ct. App. 1983). 1990See State v. Lukasik, 115 Wis. 2d 134, 140 , 340 N.W.2d 62, 65 (Ct. App. 1983).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Witkowski green wisctapp · 1991 2 sentences 2026The State maintains the court did not err because Jackson’s claims are procedurally barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 176, 185 , 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), and State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990 , 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶9 Whether a postconviction motion alleged “sufficient material facts” to entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing on the motion is a question of law we review de novo. 2026The State maintains the court did not err because Jackson’s claims are procedurally barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 176, 185 , 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), and State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990 , 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991). ¶9 Whether a postconviction motion alleged “sufficient material facts” to entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing on the motion is a question of law we review de novo.	1	2026–2026
State v. Brown green wis · 2006 1 sentence 2013In Brown , the court concluded that the failure to advise the defendant that the punishment for each charge could run consecutively did not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing "in the absence of any allegation that the defendant did not understand the effect of multiple charges on his sentence." Brown, 293 Wis. 2d 594, ¶ 78 .	1	2013–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (16) WI § Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (7) WI § Wis. Stat. § 971.08 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 809.30 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 752.35 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NJ 202 (2016–2026) WI 23 (1990–2026) IL 19 (1975–2024) MS 12 (2007–2019) CO 5 (1971–2024) CT 3 (2009–2025) MO 2 (1968–1992) IA 2 (1982–2014) FL 2 (1980–2016) MN 2 (2004–2010) NM 2 (2013–2013) MA 2 (1991–2008)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check