847 N.W.2d 805
Wis.2014Background
- Lorenzo Kyles pled guilty to first-degree reckless homicide and was sentenced on Nov. 12, 2002; a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief had to be filed within 20 days of sentencing.
- Kyles and trial counsel Thomas Flanagan signed a form acknowledging the 20-day deadline; Kyles alleges he repeatedly tried to contact Flanagan (calls, a letter, and messages via his mother) during the 20-day period but counsel was unavailable and never filed the notice.
- Kyles first filed a Knight habeas petition in the court of appeals seeking reinstatement of his direct appeal rights; the court of appeals dismissed it as the wrong forum and directed him to the circuit court.
- Kyles then filed pro se petitions and motions in circuit court and the court of appeals over several years; lower courts either construed the filings differently or denied relief without resolving the merits.
- The core legal question presented to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was the correct forum and procedure for a claim that counsel was ineffective by failing to file the notice of intent, and whether Kyles’ Knight petition alleged sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kyles) | Defendant's Argument (State/Pollard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for claim that counsel failed to file notice of intent | Court of appeals is proper because circuit court cannot extend the Rule 809.30 filing deadline; claim is akin to failure to commence an appeal | Forum should be circuit court because the alleged ineffectiveness occurred before the circuit court | Court of appeals is the proper forum when the forum where error occurred cannot provide the required remedy |
| Appropriate procedural vehicle (Knight habeas vs. §809.82(2) motion) | Knight habeas petition is proper because the claim raises fact-intensive ineffective-assistance issues and seeks restoration of appellate rights | State suggested circuit remedies or extension motions could be available | Knight habeas petition is the appropriate vehicle; §809.82(2) motion is ill-suited for resolving counsel ineffectiveness claims |
| Remedy for failure to file notice of intent | Extension of the timeframe to file the notice (reinstatement of appellate rights) | Circuit court can vacate/reinstate judgments to restore deadlines | The proper remedy is extension of the deadline, which only the court of appeals can grant under Rule 809.82 authority |
| Sufficiency of Kyles’ petition to warrant an evidentiary hearing | Petition alleges specific, nonconclusory facts (calls, letter, mother’s message, post-deadline meeting with counsel) entitling him to a hearing | State argued some claims were not preserved or are procedurally barred | Petition alleges sufficient facts; remand for an evidentiary hearing (appoint referee or refer to circuit court) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509 (1992) (appellate court is the preferred forum for claims of ineffective appellate counsel)
- State ex rel. Rothering v. McCaughtry, 205 Wis. 2d 675 (Ct. App. 1996) (claims about postconviction counsel belong in trial court where appropriate remedies exist)
- State v. Evans, 273 Wis. 2d 192 (2004) (distinguishes §809.82(2) extension motions from Knight petitions; Knight is the proper vehicle for substantive ineffective-assistance claims)
- State ex rel. Smalley v. Morgan, 211 Wis. 2d 795 (Ct. App. 1997) (court of appeals may hear claims that counsel failed to commence an appeal)
- State v. Rembert, 99 Wis. 2d 401 (1980) (court of appeals’ authority to extend Rule 809.30 time periods is exclusive of the trial court)