2024 WI App 49
Wis. Ct. App.2024Background
- Brian Frazier was convicted in 2013 after pleading no contest to first-degree sexual assault of a child and physical abuse of a child.
- He previously sought postconviction relief under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.30, which was denied, culminating with a Supreme Court denial of review in 2021.
- Frazier then filed a new motion under Wis. Stat. § 974.06, initially requesting DNA testing of destroyed evidence, later supplemented with claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations.
- The circuit court denied his § 974.06 motion without a new evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, Frazier alleged multiple new ineffective assistance claims, a due process and equal protection violation from premature evidence destruction, and ineffectiveness of prior postconviction counsel.
- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new ineffective assistance claims (re: bedsheet evidence, search warrant) are procedurally barred | Frazier argued that prior postconviction counsel was ineffective for not raising them | State said the claims are barred because they are not clearly stronger than those previously litigated | Barred; new claims not clearly stronger than prior claims |
| Whether destruction of bedsheet evidence violated due process or equal protection | Destruction deprived him of potentially exculpatory evidence and statutory rights | State argued no equal protection violation; due process violation requires bad faith or apparent exculpatory value | No violation; no bad faith or apparent exculpatory value shown |
| Whether postconviction counsel was ineffective by failing to elicit needed testimony at earlier evidentiary hearing | Counsel failed to ask questions that would have shown he’d have rejected plea if properly advised | State argued the issue was already decided and not justiciable | No prejudice shown; proposed new testimony insufficient |
| Whether Frazier was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction claims | Sufficient facts alleged to warrant a hearing | Record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief | Denied; motion did not allege sufficient facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requires warnings before custodial interrogation)
- State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168 (1994) (bars successive postconviction claims absent sufficient reason)
- State v. Greenwold, 189 Wis. 2d 59 (Ct. App. 1994) (delineates test for due process violation from lost or destroyed evidence)