State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28

Harbor seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals decision affirming a circuit court’s denial of postconviction relief.
Harbor argues that new factors—mental health, cocaine addiction, and traumatic childhood—justify sentence modification.
Alternatively, Harbor claims ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate/present those mitigating factors during sentencing.
The circuit court sentenced Harbor to 24 years’ confinement total after guilty pleas to three counts; mental health was acknowledged as mitigating but controlled via medication.
Cedar Creek Report, detailing mental health issues, addiction, and childhood trauma, was developed for postconviction relief.
Wisconsin Supreme Court clarifies the legal standard for a 'new factor' and rejects Harbor’s arguments for modification and prejudice from counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cedar Creek Report facts constitute a new factor	Harbor argues new factors justify modification.	Harbor's facts were known or not highly relevant to modify sentence.	No new factor established; mental health facts were known and considered.
Whether addiction history constitutes a new factor justifying modification	Recurring drug use amounts to a new factor requiring modification.	Addictions were considered but not mitigating; no modification warranted.	Not a new factor; did not justify modification.
Whether traumatic upbringing constitutes a new factor justifying modification	Childhood trauma could mitigate and justify less severe punishment.	No causal link shown between childhood and current offenses; not a new factor.	Not a new factor; no modification warranted.
Whether counsel’s performance was prejudicial under Strickland	Counsel failed to investigate/present mitigating factors, causing prejudice.	Undertaken strategy not shown to be deficient or prejudicial.	Harbor failed to show prejudice; no relief granted.

Rosado v. State, 70 Wis.2d 280 (Wis. 1975) (defines 'new factor' as material and not known at sentencing)
State v. Michels, 150 Wis.2d 94 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989) (introduced requirement about frustration of purpose (Overruled by later decision clarifying Rosado))
State v. Hegwood, 113 Wis.2d 544 (Wis. 1983) (two-step new-factor analysis; discretionary review)
State v. Franklin, 148 Wis.2d 1 (Wis. 1989) (framework for assessing new factors and modification)
State v. Crochiere, 273 Wis.2d 57 (Wis. 2004) (limits and application of sentence-modification standards)
State v. Sepulveda, 119 Wis.2d 546 (Wis. 1984) (probation-modification context; authority considerations)
State v. Delaney, 289 Wis.2d 714 (Wis. 2006) (frustration/definition debates in new-factor context)