989 N.W.2d 555
Wis.2023Background
- Daimon Von Jackson pleaded guilty to second-degree reckless homicide (not as a party to a crime) after an incident in which the victim was killed during a robbery; Jackson maintained he was a lookout, not the shooter.
- Jackson moved postconviction alleging his fourth trial counsel, Scott Anderson, provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to communicate a plea offer, failing to meet and prepare with Jackson before trial, and failing to challenge the State's alleged breach of a plea offer and other trial/plea-colloquy errors.
- The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's denial of Jackson's postconviction motion; that panel decision drew a lengthy dissent by Judge Reilly, who catalogued numerous attorney errors and characterized the case as a systemic failure.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review but then dismissed the petition as improvidently granted in a per curiam order, declining to decide the merits.
- Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley (joined in part by two other justices) concurred, defending the court’s practice of issuing unexplained dismissals and noting reasons courts often refrain from issuing explanations; Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (joined by Justice Dallet) dissented, arguing the issues warranted plenary review and criticizing the lack of explanation.
- Separately, Anderson was disciplined by this court for violations of professional-conduct rules arising from his representation of Jackson; the State conceded some mistakes but disputed that the representation was constitutionally deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jackson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate a plea offer | Counsel's conduct did not rise to Strickland prejudice; no entitlement to relief | Anderson failed to timely convey and discuss a PTAC plea offer, causing prejudice at plea/sentencing | Supreme Court dismissed petition as improvidently granted; merits not decided |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to meet/prepare with client and witnesses | No constitutional deficiency shown; state argued adequacy or lack of prejudice | Anderson did not sufficiently meet/prepare, undermining plea choice and trial strategy | Dismissed as improvidently granted; no ruling on Strickland merits |
| Whether the State breached a pretrial plea offer (PTAC offer) and whether counsel should have challenged it | State disputed breach or its materiality | Jackson contends State breached PTAC offer and counsel should have challenged breach and secured better plea | Dismissed as improvidently granted; Court did not resolve breach/remedy question |
| Whether the Court should provide reasons when dismissing a petition as improvidently granted | Implied support for customary practice of terse dismissal; resources and judicial-restraint concerns | Court should explain dismissals to litigants and public; transparency and fairness require a reasoned order | Petition dismissed as improvidently granted; concurrence defended no-explanation practice; dissent urged explanation and review |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Cooper, 387 Wis. 2d 439 (2019) (professional-conduct violations do not automatically establish Strickland prejudice)
- Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anderson, 394 Wis. 2d 190 (2020) (disciplinary action against counsel for conduct during representation)
- Slamka v. Gen. Heating and Air Conditioning Inc., 404 Wis. 2d 586 (2022) (example of dismissal as improvidently granted without explanatory opinion)
- State v. Lee, 401 Wis. 2d 593 (2022) (recent dismissal without explanation cited in concurrence)
- Rice v. Sioux City Mem'l Park Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70 (1955) (noting appellate courts commonly dismiss petitions without opinion)