State v. Simpson

80 Citing cases

  1. Verbanac v. Pugh

    Case No. 11-C-0817 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 18, 2012)

    Trial counsel is not ineffective if he or she does not bring a motion that would have failed. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 784 519 N.W. 2d 662 (Ct. App. 1994). The record conclusively demonstrates that Verbanac's complaint that counsel failed to seek suppression has no merit.

  2. State v. Sarnowski

    Case No. 96-0643-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 1997)   Cited 1 times

    Again, we remind the trial court to engage in an on-the-record colloquy with a defendant regarding the right to testify. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis.2d 772, 779, 519 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Ct.App. 1994); see alsoState v.Wilson, 179 Wis.2d 660, 672 n. 3, 508 N.W.2d 44, 48 n. 3 (Ct. App. 1993), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 100 (1994). A defendant's right to testify is fundamental.

  3. State v. Mills

    2016AP930-CRNM (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2017)

    It is well established that if the unfiled motion would have been unsuccessful, trial counsel is not deficient for not filing it. See State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 784, 519 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1994). The due process hearing is often referred to as a Becker hearing.

  4. State v. Arredondo

    2004 WI App. 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 61 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that there is a "well-recognized distinction between the fact-finder's function at the guilt stage, where the fact-finder must determine whether the government has proved a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the sentencing judge's role, which is to assess the defendant's character using all available information, unconstrained by the rules of evidence that govern the guilt-phase of a criminal proceeding."

    A defendant's right to testify is a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis.2d 772, 778, 519 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Ct. App. 1994). A defendant may, however, waive the right to testify.

  5. State v. Weed

    647 N.W.2d 467 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002)

    ¶ 7. A defendant's right to testify is a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis.2d 772, 778, 519 N.W.2d 662 (Ct.App. 1994). The right, however, may be waived.

  6. State v. Fuentes

    Case No. 97-1471-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 1998)

    Although Wilson states that the record must show that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to testify, it does not require that the court obtain an on-the-record waiver of the defendant's right to testify during trial. In State v. Simpson, 185 Wis.2d 772, 519 N.W.2d 662 (Ct.App. 1994), we considered the totality of the record, including the transcript of the postconviction hearing, in determining whether the defendant appropriately waived his right to testify. Seeid. at 779-80, 519 N.W.2d at 664.

  7. State v. Weed

    2003 WI 85 (Wis. 2003)   Cited 106 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, consistent with Anderson and Klessig, a colloquy is required where a defendant, waives the right to testify

    Consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rock, the court of appeals has concluded that a "defendant's right to testify is fundamental in nature." State v. Simpson, 185 Wis.2d 772, 778, 519 N.W.2d 662 (Ct.App. 1994) (emphasis added); see also State v. Wilson, 179 Wis.2d 660, 670, 508 N.W.2d 44 (Ct.App. 1993). ¶ 38.

  8. State v. Hartleben

    Appeal No. 2016AP1066-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2017)

    Here, however, we conclude Hartleben has failed to prove either deficient performance or prejudice precisely because he has failed to show any implied bias in connection with the PSI, and an objection on that basis therefore would have been properly denied. See State v. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, ¶21, 320 Wis. 2d 209, 769 N.W.2d 110 (counsel does not perform deficiently by failing to raise a legal challenge that would have been properly denied); State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 784, 519 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1994) (defendant is not prejudiced by counsel's failure to make a motion that would have been denied). Thus, even though Hartleben has forfeited his right to direct appellate review of his implied bias claim, under the circumstances, our ineffective assistance analysis amounts to a direct review of that claim.

  9. State v. Robertson

    2012 WI App. 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012)

    Counsel is not deficient for failing to file a motion that would not have been granted. See State v. Simpson, 185 Wis.2d 772, 784, 519 N.W.2d 662 (Ct.App.1994).

  10. State v. Berggren

    2009 WI App. 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 86 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless motion

    Because a suppression motion related to the memory stick would have been appropriately denied, Berggren's trial counsel was not ineffective for not making one. See State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 784, 519 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1994) (an attorney is not ineffective for not making a motion that would have been denied.). Given that counsel's performance in this regard was not deficient, we do not address the prejudice prong.