State v. Balliette, 2011 WI 79

Balliette challenged an unpublished Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision reversing a Winnebago County circuit court ruling on Balliette’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion for a new trial based on ineffective postconviction counsel.
Court conducted de novo review of whether the § 974.06 motion on its face possessed sufficient material facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
Court held the § 974.06 motion was insufficient because it did not state facts showing deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland.
Motion focused on postconviction counsel’s conduct rather than specifically detailing trial counsel’s alleged deficiencies.
Balliette attached an accident reconstruction report but failed to articulate how postconviction counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial, or to identify witnesses and testimony for an evidentiary hearing.
Court applied Nelson, Bentley, and John Allen pleading standards to assess sufficiency of the motion and whether a Machner hearing was warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Balliette’s § 974.06 motion is facially sufficient to merit an evidentiary hearing	Balliette	Prosser majority	No; motion lacked particularized facts showing deficient performance and prejudice.
Whether lack of specific reliance on Strickland elements bars a hearing	Balliette	Prosser majority	No; but the motion failed to articulate how postconviction counsel’s actions prejudiced the defense.
Whether alleging ineffective postconviction counsel can constitute a sufficient reason to overcome Escalona-Naranjo bar	Balliette	Prosser majority	Not enough; the motion must also plead facts showing deficiency and prejudice.

Nelson v. State, 273 Wis. 2d 489 (Wis. 1972) (established that a hearing is required if facts would entitle relief; allowed discretionary denial if conclusory or no facts.)
Bentley v. State, 201 Wis. 2d 189 (Wis. 1996) (reaffirmed Nelson two-step approach and discretion to deny without hearing if insufficient facts.)
State v. John Allen, 274 Wis. 2d 568 (Wis. 2004) (set five 'w's and one 'h' pleading framework for § 974.06 motions.)
State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168 (Wis. 1994) (established finality principles and constraints on successive postconviction motions.)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice.)
State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979) (Machner hearing requirement to evaluate trial-counsel effectiveness.)
State v. Hampton, 274 Wis. 2d 379 (Wis. 2004) (distinguished Bangert and Bentley-type claims; emphasized need for factual basis for claims.)
State v. Love, 2005 WI 116 (Wis. 2005) (discussed sufficient reason for not raising issues earlier; related to ineffective postconviction counsel.)
Rothering v. McCaughtry, 205 Wis. 2d 675 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996) (addressed sufficiency of reason for failure to raise issues; ultimate fact-finding required.)
State v. Levesque, 63 Wis. 2d 412 (Wis. 1974) (early articulation of pleading standards in postconviction context.)