State v. Hammill

7 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Collateral attack on priors rebuffed due to lack of prima facie showing that right to counsel was violated in prior proceedings

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderApril 8, 2015

    ****¶34 Finally, even if we considered Lebo’s testimony from the evidentiary hearing, we would nevertheless conclude he failed to make a prima facie showing. See State v. Hammill, 2006 WI App 128, ¶¶9-11, 293 Wis. 2d 654, 718 N.W.2d 747 (considering defendant’s testimony at an evidentiary hearing in order to conclude defendant failed to make a prima facie showing his right to counsel was violated). At the hearing, Lebo could recall very little about what occurred during the Shawano County proceedings.

  2. Issue Preclusion – OWI Enhancer; Foreign Conviction; Collateral Attack

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderFebruary 8, 2012

    However, Imbruglia’s argument that this makes the latter conviction “void and uncountable” (because municipal courts lack jurisdiction over criminal cases), is barred by the rule that “a defendant generally may not collaterally attack the validity of a prior conviction in order to avoid counting it for purposes of sentence enhancement, unless the offender alleges a violation of his or her constitutional right to counsel,” ¶27, citing State v. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, ¶¶26-28, 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528.¶28 More recently, in State v.Hammill, 2006 WI App 128, 293 Wis. 2d 654, 718 N.W.2d 747, we were guided by Hahn in addressing a case similar to Imbruglia’s. There, the defendant was charged twice with first offense OWI, once in Eau Claire county and once in the Village of Cameron.

  3. OWI – successful collateral attack on prior uncounseled conviction upheld on state’s appeal

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderMarch 10, 2013

    State v. Joseph L. Hernandez, 2012AP2148-CR, District 2, 2/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activityThe trial court properly found that Hernandez made a prima facie showing that a prior OWI conviction was invalid despite his poor recollection of details of the prior proceeding, distinguishing State v. Hammill, 2006 WI App 128, ¶11, 293 Wis. 654, 718 N.W.2d 747 (“a defendant who ‘simply does not remember what occurred at his plea hearing’ does not make a prima facie showing”):¶10 Although this case somewhat resembles Hammill in that it involves a defendant’s less than perfect memory of the earlier proceedings and a sparse record, Hernandez has done what Hammill did not: he has affirmatively asserted that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel. First, he submitted an affidavit stating that “[he] was neither advised, nor was [he], in fact, aware that a lawyer may have been able to discern matters beyond [his] capacity such as defenses, objections or constitutional arguments.”

  4. Challenges to blood draw, use of OWI prior convictions rejected

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderApril 28, 2017

    (¶¶15-16).Regarding the prior convictions:Baehni collaterally attacked a 1990 conviction, but failed to make a prima facie showing that her waiver of counsel in the case was invalid. She didn’t point to specific facts from that case showing she didn’t know or understand about the right to counsel; instead, she basically didn’t remember what happened, and that’s not good enough, State v. Hammill, 2006 WI App 128, 293 Wis. 2d 654, 718 N.W.2d 747. (¶¶17-24)Baehni also collaterally attacked a 1992 conviction. The circuit court initially found that case had been dismissed, so there was no conviction to attack.

  5. Jurisdiction

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderMarch 25, 2010

    The larger lesson though, and the one to take away from the case is this: “It is well established that one court does not have the authority to re-open and set aside the judgment of another court. See, e.g.,Salter v. Cook, 131 Wis. 20, 23, 110 N.W. 823 (1907); Coon v. Seymour, 71 Wis. 340, 346, 37 N.W. 243 (1888),” ¶8. Totally separate point: It bears remembering that you can collaterally attack the alleged enhancer within the ongoing prosecution, if but only if you can claim denial of counsel in the prior case, State v. Joseph J. Hammill, 2006 WI App 128, ¶¶15-17. And, because there is no right to counsel in an OWI-1st, you simply can’t launch such an attack, id.

  6. OWI – Enhancer – Collateral Attack on OWI-1st

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderFebruary 21, 2006

    State v. Joseph J. Hammill, 2006 WI App 128. For Hammill: Patrick J. StanglIssue/Holding:¶15 Hammill argues the circuit court erred by counting a Village of Cameron conviction.

  7. Enhancer – Collateral Attack – Transcript Missing from Enhancer Case, & Defendant’s Prima Facie Burden

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderFebruary 21, 2006

    State v. Joseph J. Hammill, 2006 WI App 128 For Hammill: Patrick J. StanglIssue/Holding:¶6 A defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction in an enhanced sentence proceeding only on the ground that the defendant was denied the constitutional right to counsel. …¶7 Hammill argues that he made a prima facie showing that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel.