State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 912 N.W.2d 89

Background

Lamont Sholar was convicted on six counts related to sex trafficking, pimping, and a separate second-degree sexual assault; two victims and multiple police witnesses testified, and digital evidence from a phone and Econolodge computer linked Sholar to Backpage ads.
Exhibit 79 (a printed dump of Sholar's phone: contacts, texts, photos, audio/video) was admitted at trial and sent to the jury during deliberations; the jury convicted on all six counts.
Postconviction, Sholar argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Exhibit 79 going to the jury; the court of appeals remanded for a Machner hearing on at least the sexual-assault claim.
At the Machner hearing the circuit court found counsel’s performance deficient in allowing Exhibit 79 to go to the jury, vacated only the sexual-assault conviction (count 5) as prejudiced, and upheld the trafficking/pimping convictions based on overwhelming admissible evidence.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed: Strickland permits a count-by-count prejudice analysis in multi-count trials, the publication of Exhibit 79 prejudiced only the sexual-assault conviction, and the State did not forfeit arguing prejudice by not petitioning for review after the court of appeals’ initial remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sholar)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether a showing of prejudice as to one count requires vacatur of all convictions	Prejudice from Exhibit 79 required vacating all six convictions	Strickland allows count-by-count prejudice analysis; guilty verdicts are separate per count	No; Strickland permits assessing prejudice count-by-count and vacatur limited to the affected count
Whether Exhibit 79's admission prejudiced trafficking/pimping counts	Exhibit 79 inflamed the jury and undermined all convictions	Trafficking/pimping convictions were supported by overwhelming, independent evidence; most exhibit content had already been presented	No prejudice shown for trafficking/pimping counts; convictions upheld
Whether the State forfeited the right to contest prejudice at Machner because it did not seek review after Sholar I	Sholar: State’s failure to petition Sholar I amounted to forfeiture of prejudice argument	State: Sholar I only decided entitlement to a Machner hearing; it did not resolve prejudice, so no forfeiture	No forfeiture; State may contest prejudice at the Machner hearing
Whether Strickland prejudice standard is being conflated with sufficiency-of-evidence standard	Sholar: court of appeals applied a sufficiency-style test requiring all-or-nothing relief	State: courts must apply Strickland’s reasonable-probability/confidence-in-outcome standard, distinct from sufficiency review	Court reiterated Strickland is distinct from sufficiency review and applied Strickland’s standard

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective assistance test and "reasonable probability" prejudice standard)
State v. Balliette, 336 Wis. 2d 358 (Wis. 2011) (summarizes Strickland framework in Wisconsin)
State v. Jenkins, 355 Wis. 2d 180 (Wis. 2014) (example where deficient performance required vacatur of multiple convictions because all depended on same evidence)
State v. Thiel, 264 Wis. 2d 571 (Wis. 2003) (ineffective assistance warranted reversal when multiple counts relied on the same critical witness credibility)
State v. Honig, 366 Wis. 2d 681 (Ct. App. 2016) (court of appeals reversal where counsel’s failure to call exculpatory witness undermined convictions tied to same evidence)
State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (Ct. App. 1979) (requires evidentiary hearing when a postconviction motion alleges facts that, if true, would entitle defendant to relief)
State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 (explains "unfair prejudice" from other-acts evidence that inflames jury)