Kеnneth Brooks appeals an order denying post-conviction relief from two judgments of conviction. He was convicted of possession of a fireаrm by a felon, sec. 941.29(2), Stats., and for maintaining a dwelling used for keeping controlled substances, sec. 161.42(1), Stats. He claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the search of his home. Brooks also argues that the jury instructions for the sec. 161.42(1) offense misstated the law. Beсause Brooks’s trial counsel’s decision not to challenge the execution of the search warrant meets the standard of a reasonable attorney, we affirm the part of the order that relates to the weapons charge. Because the jury instructions in the controlled substances prosecutiоn misstated the law to Brooks’s prejudice, we reverse the part of the order relating to the controlled substances charge.
Law enforcement officials searched Brooks’s home pursuant to a search warrant. The officers found a handgun on Brooks and cocaine and drug paraphernaliа in various locations in the home. Brooks’s attorney did not move to suppress the evidence seized in the search. After Brooks and his attorney testified at thе post-conviction motion hearing, the trial judge concluded that the attorney had effectively represented Brooks.
Brooks first argues that his trial counsеl’s failure to challenge the execution of the search warrant constituted
*352
ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudiced his defense. Tо establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must show that his attorney’s performance was deficient and that the deficient рerformance prejudiced the defense.
Strickland v. Washington,
- US -,
Brooks failed to establish that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient. Brooks’s trial counsel acted reasonably in deciding not to challenge the execution of the search warrant. The attorney reviewed police reports to investigate the manner in which the search warrant was executed. Based on the police reports, the attorney anticipated that the officers would testify that they knocked at the door, identified themselves, and stated their purpose. After hearing voices and movement inside the dwelling and waiting for someone to answer the door, the officers broke down the locked door. At the preliminary hearing and at trial, a law enforcement official testified consistent with the anticipated testimony.
Brooks claims that the officers did not adequately annоunce their presence nor allow adequate time for someone to answer the door. He testified that while he was in an upstairs bedroom, he heard the sound of glass breaking. He thought his child had dropped a glass. Brooks testified that he did not hear a knock and that he first became aware of the searсh when he met an officer with a shotgun as he was coming from his son’s *353 upstairs bedroom. This testimony, however, is consistent with the law enforcement official’s testimony that he heard movement and voices inside the home before breaking down the door.
Brooks’s trial counsel testified that his decision not to challenge the exеcution of the search warrant was based on
Morales v. State,
Brooks also faults his trial counsel for failing to challenge the entry by claiming that it was made pursuant to an illegal no-knock search warrant.
See State v. Cleveland,
Brooks’s second argument relates to the controlled substances conviction. He contеnds that the jury instruction on the sec. 161.42(1) offense substantially misstated the law. Section 161.42(1) prohibits a person from knowingly maintaining a dwelling that is used for manufacturing, keeping, or dеlivering controlled substances. In instructing the jury, the court defined “keeping” as “knowing of something’s presence, knowing of its accessibility and exercising dominion and cоntrol over the place where it is kept. It implies something more than a transitory presence. It means some duration over a period of time.”
At trial, Brоoks objected to this jury instruction and argued that “keeping” should be defined to also imply permanence. On appeal, he changes his argument and urges us tо interpret “keeping” to include the requirement that the controlled substances be kept as part of a larger criminal enterprise. Brooks’s failure to object to the jury instruction on this ground does not preclude our review of the issue. Although Brooks is not entitled to review, we may elect to review the issue if the еrror is so plain or fundamental that it affects his substantial rights.
See Lunde v. State,
We read into the noun “keeping” in sec. 161.41(2) the requirement that the controlled substance be kept for thе purpose of warehousing or storage for ultimate manufacture or delivery. This construction renders sec. 161.42(1) constitutional.
See State v. Schmit,
Our construction is supported by the context of “keeping” in sec. 161.42(1) and the drafters’ notes to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The placement of “keeping” in sec. 161.42(1) between the words “manufacturing” and “delivering” suggests that the legislature intended to prоhibit more than the simple possession prohibited by sec. 161.41(3). We further note that sec. 161.42(1) is similar to sec. 402(5) of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. According to the draftеrs’ notes, sec. 402 defines the commercial offenses relating to manufacturing, distributing, and dispensing controlled substances. Unif. Controlled Substances Act § 402, 9 U.L.A. 493 (1979).
Based on our сonstruction of sec. 161.42(1), the trial court misstated the law in the jury instruction. The misstatement affected Brooks’s substantial rights. The record contains conflicting evidencе on whether Brooks was keeping the cocaine for the purpose of warehousing or storage for ultimate manufacture or delivery. We therefоre reverse the sec. 161.42(1) conviction and remand this matter for a new trial.
By the Court. — Order affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded. No costs to either party.