{"id":16577,"date":"2012-02-21T16:42:05","date_gmt":"2012-02-21T21:42:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=16577"},"modified":"2012-02-21T16:42:05","modified_gmt":"2012-02-21T21:42:05","slug":"difficulties-arising-out-of-no-merit-reports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2012\/02\/difficulties-arising-out-of-no-merit-reports\/","title":{"rendered":"Difficulties Arising Out of No-Merit Reports"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Under Wisconsin Statute 809.32(1), an attorney representing a criminally convicted client on appeal must file a no-merit report if he or she:<\/p>\n

concludes that a direct appeal on behalf of the [client] would be frivolous and without any arguable merit within the meaning of\u00a0Anders v. California<\/em>, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the [client] requests that a\u00a0no-merit\u00a0report\u00a0be filed or declines to consent to have the attorney close the file without further representation by the attorney.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A no-merit report is essentially as it sounds, a report to the Court of Appeals stating that the client has no arguable case.\u00a0 Once a no-merit report is filed, the client may choose to respond.\u00a0 If the client does not respond, or does and the court finds that there are no meritorious claims, the court will affirm the conviction.<\/p>\n

This situation, however, brings to light an interesting predicament for convicted individuals.\u00a0 In State v. Allen<\/em>, the defendant (Aaron Allen) was convicted of armed robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm.\u00a0 328 Wis. 2d 1, 6.\u00a0 Subsequently, Aaron Allen\u2019s post-conviction\/appellate attorney filed a no-merit report, and Aaron Allen did not file a response.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.\u00a0 Seven years later, Aaron Allen filed pro se a Wisconsin Statute \u00a7 974.06 motion alleging his post-conviction attorney was ineffective for not bringing an ineffective assistance claim against his trial counsel.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 7.\u00a0 The court denied the motion, deciding the issues raised by Aaron Allen had been waived because he did not raise them in response to the no-merit report, thus he was barred under Escalona-Naranjo, <\/em>185 Wis. 2d 168 (Wis. 1994).\u00a0 328 Wis. 2d at 8.<\/p>\n

The premise of the court\u2019s decision is sound \u2013 Aaron Allen did not raise an issue when he should have, thus he is barred from raising it in the future.\u00a0 The court has an interest in finality, and not having to hear claims that could have been brought in a previous appeal.\u00a0 However, the practical result is very unfavorable to the defendant.<\/p>\n

To begin with, a convicted individual whose own attorney is telling him or her that there are no legitimate appellate claims to be raised is sure to be disheartened.\u00a0 In addition, it cannot be said that the attorney is really representing the convicted individual at that point \u2013 quite the opposite; the attorney is telling the court that the \u201cclient\u201d has no claims.\u00a0 Despite both of these factors, the court holds that if the convicted individual wants to assert his or her claim, it must be done immediately, in response to the \u201ccounsel\u2019s\u201d no-merit report.\u00a0 The convicted individual must identify issues that could be appealed right away and raise them alone.\u00a0 The convicted individual must then prepare a brief for the appellate court \u2013 a brief which will be looked at after the court has already seen the no-merit report prepared by an attorney.<\/p>\n

In sum, a defendant whose attorney files a no-merit report is faced with an uphill battle.\u00a0 The defendant must spot issues to raise and prepare a brief on them alone, after being told that he or she has no issues to raise.\u00a0 The court does have a strong interest in finality and efficiency, but those interests need to be balanced with the defendant\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Under Wisconsin Statute 809.32(1), an attorney representing a criminally convicted client on appeal must file a no-merit report if he or she: concludes that a direct appeal on behalf of the [client] would be frivolous and without any arguable merit within the meaning of\u00a0Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the [client] requests that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":130,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,122,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-public","category-criminal-law","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/130"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}