974.06 Annotation
The necessity or desirability of the presence of defendant at a hearing on postconviction motions is a matter of discretion for the trial court and depends upon the existence of substantial issues of fact; hence, there was no abuse of discretion in denial of defendant's motion to be present at the hearing on his 974.06 motions where only issues of law were raised and defense counsel had other opportunities to consult with his client. Sanders v. State, 69 W (2d) 242, 230 NW (2d) 845.
974.06 Annotation
Although the allegation that defendant was sick from extensive use of amphetamines at the time of his confession finds no support in the record of the original proceedings, a silent record does not conclusively show a defendant is entitled to no relief, and where defendant refuted his earlier statement that no promises were made to induce his confession other than that he would not have to go to jail that day and alleged a promise of probation, an issue of fact was presented requiring an evidentiary hearing. Zuehl v. State, 69 W (2d) 355, 230 NW (2d) 673.
974.06 Annotation
In an appeal via writ of error to review a sentence for forgery consisting of an 8-year prison term with the additional requirement that restitution be made, the supreme court, while reaching the merits, determines that henceforth the procedures made applicable by the postconviction relief statute shall be the exclusive procedure utilized to seek correction of an allegedly unlawful sentence. Spannuth v. State, 70 W (2d) 362, 234 NW (2d) 79.
974.06 Annotation
State courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over postconviction motion of federal prisoner not in custody under the sentence of a state court. State v. Theoharopoulos, 72 W (2d) 327, 240 NW (2d) 635.
974.06 Annotation
See note to art. I, sec. 8, citing State v. North, 91 W (2d) 507, 283 NW (2d) 457 (Ct. App. 1979).
974.06 Annotation
See note to art I, sec. 8, citing State v. Stawicki, 93 W (2d) 63, 286 NW (2d) 612 (Ct. App. 1979).
974.06 Annotation
Issue considered on direct review cannot be reconsidered on motion under this section. Beamon v. State, 93 W (2d) 215, 286 NW (2d) 592 (1980).
974.06 Annotation
This section does not supplant the writ of error coram nobis. Jessen v. State, 95 W (2d) 207, 290 NW (2d) 685 (1980).
974.06 Annotation
Court had no jurisdiction under s. 974.06, 1979 stats., to hear challenge of computation of prisoner's good time; habeas corpus was proper avenue of relief. State v. Johnson, 101 W (2d) 698, 305 NW (2d) 188 (Ct. App. 1981).
974.06 Annotation
Power of circuit court to stay execution of sentence for legal cause does not include power to stay sentence while collateral attack is being made on conviction by habeas corpus proceeding in federal court. State v. Shumate, 107 W (2d) 460, 319 NW (2d) 834 (1982).
974.06 Annotation
Burden of proof under (6) is clear and convincing evidence. State v. Walberg, 109 W (2d) 96, 325 NW (2d) 687 (1982).
974.06 Annotation
See note to Art. I, sec. 8, citing State v. Billings, 110 W (2d) 661, 329 NW (2d) 192 (1983).
974.06 Annotation
See note to Art. I, sec. 7, citing State v. Lukasik, 115 W (2d) 134, 340 NW (2d) 62 (Ct. App. 1983).
974.06 Annotation
Formal violation of 971.08 may not be remedied under this section. Motions under this section are limited to jurisdictional and constitutional matters. State v. Carter, 131 W (2d) 69, 389 NW (2d) 1 (1986).
974.06 Annotation
While trial court's failure to submit lesser-included offense instruction to jury would probably result in reversal upon timely direct appeal, error is not of constitutional proportion entitling defendant to pursue relief under this section. State v. Nicholson, 148 W (2d) 353, 435 NW (2d) 298 (Ct. App. 1988).
974.06 Annotation
Defendant challenging sentence on due process grounds based upon failure to receive copy of presentence investigation report is entitled to hearing only upon showing that the court had blanket policy of denial of access and policy was specifically applied to defendant, or that before sentencing plea defendant personally sought access and was denied it. State v. Flores, 158 W (2d) 636, 462 NW (2d) 899 (Ct. App. 1990).
974.06 Annotation
Defendant's death did not moot 974.06 motion or appeal of its denial. State v. Witkowski, 163 W (2d) 985, 473 NW (2d) 512 (Ct. App. 1991).
974.06 Annotation
Court should permit post sentencing withdrawal of guilty or no contest only to correct "manifest injustice". State v. Krieger, 163 W (2d) 241, 471 NW (2d) 599 (Ct. App. 1991).
974.06 Annotation
Where a defendant is represented by the same attorney at trial and after conviction, the attorney's inability to assert his or her own ineffectiveness is a sufficient reason under sub. (4) for not asserting the matter in the original s. 974.06 motion. State v. Robinson, 177 W (2d) 46, 501 NW (2d) 831 (Ct. App. 1993).
974.06 Annotation
When a defendant must be present for a postconviction evidentiary hearing, the use of a telephone hearing is not authorized. State v. Vennemann, 180 W (2d) 81, 508 NW (2d) 404 (1993).
974.06 Annotation
A defendant is prohibited from raising a constitutional issue on s. 974.06 motion if the claim could have been raised in a previously filed s. 974.02 motion or a direct appeal. State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 W (2d) 169, 517 NW (2d) 157 (1994).
974.06 Annotation
Generally new rules of law will not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review under this section. State v. Horton, 195 W (2d) 280, 536 NW (2d) 155 (Ct. App. 1995).
974.06 Annotation
A motion may not be filed under this section while an appeal of the same case is pending. Where an appeal has not been resolved, the time for appeal under sub. (1) has not expired. State v. Redmond, 203 W (2d) 13, 552 NW (2d) 115 (Ct. App. 1996).
974.06 Annotation
The Escanalona-Naranjo rule that a prisoner is compelled to raise in an original motion all grounds for postconviction relief that could have all been brought at the same time is extended to appeals by certiorari from parole and probation revocation hearings. State ex re. Macemon v. Christie,
216 Wis. 2d 336, 576 NW (2d) 84 (Ct. App. 1998).
974.06 Annotation
Subject to any other bars, all defendants on probation have standing to pursue postconviction relief under this section. State v. Mentzel, 218 W (2d) 734, 581 NW (2d) 581 (Ct. App. 1998)
974.06 Annotation
Section 973.13 commands that all sentences in excess of that authorized by law be declared void, including the repeater portion of a sentence. Prior postconviction motions that failed to challenge the validity of the sentence do not bar seeking relief from faulty repeater sentences. State v. Flowers, 221 W (2d) 20, ___ NW (2d) ___ (Ct. App. 1998).
974.06 Annotation
Because individual has no underlying constitutional right to appointed counsel in state collateral postconviction proceedings, individual may not insist upon implementation of Anders v. California, 386 US 738 (1967) procedures. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 US 551 (1987).
974.06 Annotation
Review procedures provided by this statute are entirely adequate and must be employed before state remedies will be considered exhausted for purposes of federal habeas corpus statute. Bergenthal v. Mathews, 392 F Supp. 1267.
974.06 Annotation
Postconviction remedies in the 1970's. Eisenberg, 56 MLR 69.
974.06 Annotation
The duties of trial counsel after conviction. Eisenberg, 1975 WBB No. 2.
974.06 Annotation
Wisconsin postconviction remedies. 1970 WLR 1145.
974.06 Annotation
Postconviction procedure; custody requirements. 1971 WLR 636.
974.06 Annotation
State v. Escalona-Naranjo: A Limitation on Criminal Appeals in Wisconsin? Hunt. 1997 WLR 207.
