Machner hearing in Wisconsin

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).

2026See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . ¶48 Based on the foregoing, the Record conclusively establishes that regardless of whether we consider each of Heinemeier’s arguments individually or cumulatively, trial counsel was not ineffective and Heinemeier was therefore not entitled to a Machner hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

2026See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . ¶48 Based on the foregoing, the Record conclusively establishes that regardless of whether we consider each of Heinemeier’s arguments individually or cumulatively, trial counsel was not ineffective and Heinemeier was therefore not entitled to a Machner hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

2026“When a circuit court summarily denies a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel without holding a Machner hearing, the issue for the court of appeals … is whether the defendant’s motion alleged sufficient [material] facts entitling him to a hearing.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶51 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 ; State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶14 , 274 Wis. 2d 568 , 682 N.W.2d 433.

2026“When a circuit court summarily denies a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel without holding a Machner hearing, the issue for the court of appeals … is whether the defendant’s motion alleged sufficient [material] facts entitling him to a hearing.” State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶51 , 381 Wis. 2d 560 , 912 N.W.2d 89 ; State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶14 , 274 Wis. 2d 568 , 682 N.W.2d 433.

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).

2026A Machner hearing is “[t]he evidentiary hearing to evaluate counsel’s effectiveness, which includes counsel’s testimony to explain [counsel’s] handling of the case.” State v. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, ¶31 , 336 Wis. 2d 358 , 805 N.W.2d 334 . 3 those files.

2026A Machner hearing is “[t]he evidentiary hearing to evaluate counsel’s effectiveness, which includes counsel’s testimony to explain [counsel’s] handling of the case.” State v. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, ¶31 , 336 Wis. 2d 358 , 805 N.W.2d 334 . 3 those files.

2024She asserts that her postconviction motion to withdraw her plea alleged sufficient material facts to require the circuit court to hold a Machner hearing on her claim. ¶19 “A defendant is entitled to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing only upon a showing of ‘manifest injustice’ by clear and convincing evidence.” State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 311 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996).

2024She asserts that her postconviction motion to withdraw her plea alleged sufficient material facts to require the circuit court to hold a Machner hearing on her claim. ¶19 “A defendant is entitled to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing only upon a showing of ‘manifest injustice’ by clear and convincing evidence.” State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 311 , 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996).

2026“In general, there is a strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct ‘falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.’ Additionally, ‘[c]ounsel’s decisions in choosing a trial strategy are to be given great deference.’” Id. (alteration in original; citations omitted). ¶24 As an initial matter, neither party challenges the circuit court’s finding that the police report described the same sexual assault that was at issue at trial—i.e., Mary did not disclose a separate sexual assault to her father in 2017— contrary to defense counsel’s belief as testified to at the Machner h

2026“In general, there is a strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct ‘falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.’ Additionally, ‘[c]ounsel’s decisions in choosing a trial strategy are to be given great deference.’” Id. (alteration in original; citations omitted). ¶24 As an initial matter, neither party challenges the circuit court’s finding that the police report described the same sexual assault that was at issue at trial—i.e., Mary did not disclose a separate sexual assault to her father in 2017— contrary to defense counsel’s belief as testified to at the Machner h

2026“An exercise of discretion is erroneous if it is based on an error of fact or law.” Id. ¶30 We affirm the postconviction court’s decision to exercise its discretion not to hold a Machner hearing.

2026“An exercise of discretion is erroneous if it is based on an error of fact or law.” Id. ¶30 We affirm the postconviction court’s decision to exercise its discretion not to hold a Machner hearing.

2026A defendant is entitled to a Machner hearing if their postconviction motion “alleges sufficient and nonconclusory facts which would entitle the defendant to relief and the record does not conclusively establish otherwise[.]” Id.

2026A defendant is entitled to a Machner hearing if their postconviction motion “alleges sufficient and nonconclusory facts which would entitle the defendant to relief and the record does not conclusively establish otherwise[.]” Id.

2024See State v. Love, 2005 WI 116, ¶27 , 284 Wis. 2d 111 , 700 N.W.2d 62 (“[A] postconviction motion will be sufficient if it alleges within the four corners of the document itself ‘the five ‘w’s’ and one ‘h’; that is, who, what, where, when, why, and how.’” (citation omitted)). ¶49 Further, the record does not conclusively defeat Lindberg’s claim— the record cannot—because the presented information about the age of the model is new information that was not available for consideration during the trial and we lack any indication in the record of trial counsel’s investigation and trial strategy. ¶5

2024See State v. Love, 2005 WI 116, ¶27 , 284 Wis. 2d 111 , 700 N.W.2d 62 (“[A] postconviction motion will be sufficient if it alleges within the four corners of the document itself ‘the five ‘w’s’ and one ‘h’; that is, who, what, where, when, why, and how.’” (citation omitted)). ¶49 Further, the record does not conclusively defeat Lindberg’s claim— the record cannot—because the presented information about the age of the model is new information that was not available for consideration during the trial and we lack any indication in the record of trial counsel’s investigation and trial strategy. ¶5

2026The Record does not reflect whether Woods had an opportunity to accept it. ¶18 Under these facts, “[a Machner] hearing is important not only to give trial counsel a chance to explain his or her actions, but also to allow the trial 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 (Ct. App. 1998). ¶19 The importance of a Machner hearing under the facts alleged by Woods is underscored by the stark difference in penalties facing Woods between taking the deferred prosecution agreement or pleading guil

2026The Record does not reflect whether Woods had an opportunity to accept it. ¶18 Under these facts, “[a Machner] hearing is important not only to give trial counsel a chance to explain his or her actions, but also to allow the trial 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 (Ct. App. 1998). ¶19 The importance of a Machner hearing under the facts alleged by Woods is underscored by the stark difference in penalties facing Woods between taking the deferred prosecution agreement or pleading guil

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

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

2026As the court correctly noted, “Attorney Nelson cannot be held 18 deficient for not investigating and/or calling a witness if he is not given that information.” See State v. Hubanks, 173 Wis. 2d 1, 26-27 , 496 N.W.2d 96 (Ct. App. 1992) (concluding that trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to investigate and call potential witnesses when the defendant did not inform counsel of the existence of those witnesses). ¶47 On appeal, Graf claims that “[b]asic questioning of Judy would have revealed that [the Grafs] didn’t have a mower at the Star Prairie property, and that Tauber mowed t

2026As the court correctly noted, “Attorney Nelson cannot be held 18 deficient for not investigating and/or calling a witness if he is not given that information.” See State v. Hubanks, 173 Wis. 2d 1, 26-27 , 496 N.W.2d 96 (Ct. App. 1992) (concluding that trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to investigate and call potential witnesses when the defendant did not inform counsel of the existence of those witnesses). ¶47 On appeal, Graf claims that “[b]asic questioning of Judy would have revealed that [the Grafs] didn’t have a mower at the Star Prairie property, and that Tauber mowed t

2021See Romero-Georgana, 360 Wis. 2d 522, ¶64 (“We will not read into the § 974.06 motion allegations that are not within the four corners of the motion.”). ¶15 Sholar argues he has alleged sufficient material facts to entitle him to a Machner hearing on his ineffectiveness of postconviction counsel claim.

2021See Romero-Georgana, 360 Wis. 2d 522, ¶64 (“We will not read into the § 974.06 motion allegations that are not within the four corners of the motion.”). ¶15 Sholar argues he has alleged sufficient material facts to entitle him to a Machner hearing on his ineffectiveness of postconviction counsel claim.

2025The court also concluded that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument concerning A.B.’s IV treatments was not deficient because any objection would have been overruled. 4 “A Machner hearing is ‘[t]he evidentiary hearing to evaluate counsel’s effectiveness, which includes counsel’s testimony to explain his or her handling of the case.’” State v. Domke, 2011 WI 95 , ¶20 n.5, 337 Wis. 2d 268 , 805 N.W.2d 364 (citation omitted); see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 6 ¶11 Valdovinos appeals his judgment of conviction a

2025The court also concluded that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument concerning A.B.’s IV treatments was not deficient because any objection would have been overruled. 4 “A Machner hearing is ‘[t]he evidentiary hearing to evaluate counsel’s effectiveness, which includes counsel’s testimony to explain his or her handling of the case.’” State v. Domke, 2011 WI 95 , ¶20 n.5, 337 Wis. 2d 268 , 805 N.W.2d 364 (citation omitted); see also State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 6 ¶11 Valdovinos appeals his judgment of conviction a

2026Given the evidence introduced at trial, counsel’s decision to rely on a theory of defense of others rather than self-defense was an objectively reasonable decision, and thus does not constitute deficient performance. ¶70 Taylor argues that because counsel testified at the Machner hearing that counsel did not intend to concede that Taylor had not proven self-defense, counsel’s statement at closing “was not a valid strategic decision.” However, “[a] reviewing court can determine that defense counsel’s performance was objectively reasonable, even if trial counsel offers no sound strategic reasons

2026Given the evidence introduced at trial, counsel’s decision to rely on a theory of defense of others rather than self-defense was an objectively reasonable decision, and thus does not constitute deficient performance. ¶70 Taylor argues that because counsel testified at the Machner hearing that counsel did not intend to concede that Taylor had not proven self-defense, counsel’s statement at closing “was not a valid strategic decision.” However, “[a] reviewing court can determine that defense counsel’s performance was objectively reasonable, even if trial counsel offers no sound strategic reasons

2026Courts must also do everything in their power to avoid “hindsight” when analyzing counsel’s conduct and rather “evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” State v. Carter, 2010 WI 40, ¶22 , 324 Wis. 2d 640 , 782 N.W.2d 695 (citation omitted). ¶24 Whether a defendant is entitled to a Machner hearing is a mixed question of law and fact.

2026Courts must also do everything in their power to avoid “hindsight” when analyzing counsel’s conduct and rather “evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” State v. Carter, 2010 WI 40, ¶22 , 324 Wis. 2d 640 , 782 N.W.2d 695 (citation omitted). ¶24 Whether a defendant is entitled to a Machner hearing is a mixed question of law and fact.

2025See Smith, 207 Wis. 2d at 275-76 . ¶27 After reviewing the record, including the testimony of the State’s witnesses at trial and McMath’s alibi witnesses both at the trial and at the Machner hearing, we conclude that Allison’s additional testimony regarding McMath’s activities on the day of the shooting was not sufficient to firmly establish McMath’s alibi and overcome the evidence presented by the State.

2025See Smith, 207 Wis. 2d at 275-76 . ¶27 After reviewing the record, including the testimony of the State’s witnesses at trial and McMath’s alibi witnesses both at the trial and at the Machner hearing, we conclude that Allison’s additional testimony regarding McMath’s activities on the day of the shooting was not sufficient to firmly establish McMath’s alibi and overcome the evidence presented by the State.

2023Instead, an attorney’s choice of strategy must be “objectively reasonable.” See State v. Mull, 2023 WI 26, ¶35 , 406 Wis. 2d 491 , 987 N.W.2d 707 . ¶21 Here, trial counsel testified during the Machner hearing that he made a strategic choice not to introduce the surveillance video at trial, and the circuit court credited counsel’s testimony on that point.

2023Instead, an attorney’s choice of strategy must be “objectively reasonable.” See State v. Mull, 2023 WI 26, ¶35 , 406 Wis. 2d 491 , 987 N.W.2d 707 . ¶21 Here, trial counsel testified during the Machner hearing that he made a strategic choice not to introduce the surveillance video at trial, and the circuit court credited counsel’s testimony on that point.

2022“The ultimate determination of 6 whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial to the defense are questions of law which this court reviews independently.” State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 128 , 449 N.W.2d 845 (1990). ¶18 Brookshire seeks a Machner hearing for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.4 See State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).

2022“The ultimate determination of 6 whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial to the defense are questions of law which this court reviews independently.” State v. Johnson, 153 Wis. 2d 121, 128 , 449 N.W.2d 845 (1990). ¶18 Brookshire seeks a Machner hearing for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.4 See State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).

2014State v. Cooks, 2006 WI App 262, ¶63 , 297 Wis. 2d 633 , 726 N.W.2d 322 . ¶63 The court of appeals in Cooks, quoting the federal Washington case, 219 F.3d at 634 , noted that "the mere fact that some negative evidence would have come in with the positive does not eliminate the prejudicial effect of leaving corroborative evidence unintroduced." Cooks, 297 Wis. 2d 633, ¶63 . ¶64 In assessing the prejudice caused by the defense trial counsel's performance, i.e., the effect of the defense trial counsel's deficient performance, a circuit court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury in

2014State v. Cooks, 2006 WI App 262, ¶63 , 297 Wis. 2d 633 , 726 N.W.2d 322 . ¶63 The court of appeals in Cooks, quoting the federal Washington case, 219 F.3d at 634 , noted that "the mere fact that some negative evidence would have come in with the positive does not eliminate the prejudicial effect of leaving corroborative evidence unintroduced." Cooks, 297 Wis. 2d 633, ¶63 . ¶64 In assessing the prejudice caused by the defense trial counsel's performance, i.e., the effect of the defense trial counsel's deficient performance, a circuit court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury in

2024A defendant establishes ineffective assistance of counsel by making a showing under the two-prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) “(1) that trial counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” Dillard, 358 Wis. 2d 543, ¶85 . ¶20 Whether a defendant’s postconviction motion alleges sufficient facts to entitle the defendant to a Machner hearing has a mixed standard of review.

2024A defendant establishes ineffective assistance of counsel by making a showing under the two-prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) “(1) that trial counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” Dillard, 358 Wis. 2d 543, ¶85 . ¶20 Whether a defendant’s postconviction motion alleges sufficient facts to entitle the defendant to a Machner hearing has a mixed standard of review.

2022See State v. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, ¶33 , 303 Wis. 2d 157 , 736 N.W.2d 24 (credibility determinations are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review). ¶25 Moreover, Gondik provided a reasonable explanation during the Machner hearing for his choice of trial strategy.

2022See State v. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, ¶33 , 303 Wis. 2d 157 , 736 N.W.2d 24 (credibility determinations are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review). ¶25 Moreover, Gondik provided a reasonable explanation during the Machner hearing for his choice of trial strategy.

2026Phillips, 322 Wis. 2d 576, ¶17 . ¶7 We must determine whether the circuit court erred when it denied Harris’s postconviction motion without holding a Machner hearing.

2026Phillips, 322 Wis. 2d 576, ¶17 . ¶7 We must determine whether the circuit court erred when it denied Harris’s postconviction motion without holding a Machner hearing.

2025State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 774 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999). 8 The State asserts, without development, that Johnson was required to provide an affidavit with her postconviction motion describing what her testimony would be if a Machner hearing was held.

2025State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 774 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999). 8 The State asserts, without development, that Johnson was required to provide an affidavit with her postconviction motion describing what her testimony would be if a Machner hearing was held.

2019However, with regard to his cross-examination of A.D., trial counsel stated, I wasn't sure, and this is pure speculation in trying to determine why I didn't want a reason [from A.D.] in there, the only thing that sort of stands out, I was not sure what [A.D.] was going to say and I didn't want to impeach her on that, if I had to. ¶4 An objective view of the record, including trial counsel's testimony at the Machner hearing, supports the conclusion that experienced counsel could reasonably have decided to elicit as much favorable testimony from A.D. as possible and otherwise seek to avoid elici

2019However, with regard to his cross-examination of A.D., trial counsel stated, I wasn't sure, and this is pure speculation in trying to determine why I didn't want a reason [from A.D.] in there, the only thing that sort of stands out, I was not sure what [A.D.] was going to say and I didn't want to impeach her on that, if I had to. ¶4 An objective view of the record, including trial counsel's testimony at the Machner hearing, supports the conclusion that experienced counsel could reasonably have decided to elicit as much favorable testimony from A.D. as possible and otherwise seek to avoid elici