Joshua M. Wren v. Reed Richardson, 936 N.W.2d 587

In 2007, then‑15-year-old Joshua Wren pleaded guilty to first‑degree reckless homicide and was sentenced to a longer term than recommended; his trial attorney, Nikola Kostich, filed a form marking Wren "undecided" about postconviction relief but never filed a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief or an appeal.
By 2010–2011 Wren knew no appeal had been filed; between 2010 and 2016 he filed four pro se motions on various issues but never sought reinstatement of direct appeal rights or raised counsel‑failure claims.
Attorney Kostich died in 2014 and his case files could not be located, leaving the State with no means to challenge Wren's factual assertions about Kostich's promises or conduct.
In 2017 Wren filed a habeas (Knight) petition in the court of appeals asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to appeal and requesting reinstatement of direct appeal rights.
The State defended on laches grounds (unreasonable delay and prejudice due to loss of evidence/witness), the court of appeals found laches proved and denied relief, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wren)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether laches is an available defense to a habeas petition	Laches should not bar habeas; doctrine ill‑fitted here	Laches is an equitable defense available against habeas petitions	Court: Laches is available (followed Lopez‑Quintero)
Whether Wren's delay in filing was unreasonable	Delay excused because Wren lacked legal knowledge, was abandoned by counsel, and only learned habeas procedure recently	Delay unreasonable: Wren knew by 2010–2011 no appeal filed and still failed to pursue timely relief or consult new counsel	Court: Delay was unreasonable (6+ years after knowledge; constructive‑knowledge standard applies)
Whether the State suffered prejudice from delay	No: circuit‑court findings support Wren's story so unavailability of Kostich is immaterial	Yes: death of Kostich and loss of files deprived State of any ability to defend or rebut allegations	Court: Prejudice proven (evidentiary prejudice from loss of key witness/files)
Whether applying laches was an erroneous exercise of discretion	Equity favors Wren; prejudice to Wren from counsel's unavailability outweighs State's prejudice	Application of laches was equitable given Wren's long delay and State's inability to defend	Court: No error; court of appeals reasonably exercised discretion to bar relief

State ex rel. Lopez‑Quintero v. Dittmann, 387 Wis. 2d 50 (2019) (confirmed laches is a defense to habeas petitions)
State ex rel. Kyles v. Pollard, 354 Wis. 2d 626 (2014) (discusses Knight/habeas procedure to reinstate appeal rights)
Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019) (prejudice presumed where counsel's deficient performance deprives defendant of an appeal)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel deficient for failing to file a requested appeal)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (responsibility for defaults caused by ineffective counsel may be imputed to the State in some contexts)
State v. Escalona‑Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168 (1994) (procedural bar principles for postconviction motions)
State ex rel. McMillian v. Dickey, 132 Wis. 2d 266 (1986) (early Wisconsin acknowledgment that habeas may be dismissed under laches)