State v. Brian D. Frazier, 2019AP002120-CR

In 2011 Frazier was charged with first‑degree sexual assault of a child and physical abuse after a 7‑year‑old reported sexual and physical abuse; Frazier confessed during a police interrogation. A luminol test on his bed and other evidence were consistent with the allegations.
The State amended charges; Frazier pleaded no contest to first‑degree sexual assault by sexual contact (§ 948.02(1)(e)) and physical abuse of a child (§ 948.03(2)(b)) after the originally filed § 948.02(1)(b) count was dismissed under a plea agreement.
Trial counsel did not move to suppress the confession. Postconviction counsel first raised a Bangert plea‑colloquy challenge, which the circuit court denied after an evidentiary hearing.
Frazier later pursued an ineffective‑assistance claim, alleging trial counsel misadvised him that a suppression motion was not viable because he was not in custody for Miranda purposes; Frazier said he accepted the plea because of that advice.
The circuit court denied the ineffective‑assistance motion after a Machner evidentiary hearing; the court implicitly discredited Frazier’s brief testimony that he would have gone to trial if properly advised. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for advising Frazier that a suppression motion lacked merit (Miranda/custody question)	Frazier: counsel misadvised him that suppression was not viable, depriving him of effective assistance	State: court assumed deficiency for purposes of decision; main dispute is prejudice	Court assumed deficiency without deciding and proceeded to prejudice analysis
Whether Frazier showed prejudice (reasonable probability he would have refused the plea and gone to trial)	Frazier: he testified he would not have accepted the plea and would have gone to trial if told suppression was viable	State: Frazier’s testimony was conclusory and implausible given plea incentives and other evidence; circuit court did not clearly err in finding him not credible	Court held Frazier failed to prove prejudice; plea withdrawal denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for plea decisions: reasonable probability defendant would have pleaded not guilty and gone to trial)
State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 (1986) (plea‑colloquy requirements and burden shifting)
State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (1979) (entitlement to evidentiary hearing on counsel effectiveness)
State v. Lonkoski, 346 Wis. 2d 523 (2013) (custodial interrogation/Miranda warnings requirement)
State v. Dillard, 358 Wis. 2d 543 (2014) (manifest injustice standard for post‑sentencing plea withdrawal)