Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                                     This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
April 19, 2012
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Diane M. Fremgen                                                                    petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                           Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.
Cir. Ct. Nos.   2009CF3
Appeal Nos.                                                                         2010AP2510-CR
2009CF34
2010AP2511-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                  IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
ANDRES MORENO-RICHEY,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL  from  orders  of  the  circuit  court  for  Pierce  County:
JOSEPH BOLES, Judge.  Affirmed.
Before Lundsten, P.J., Vergeront and Blanchard, JJ.
¶1                                                                                  PER CURIAM.    Andres Moreno-Richey appeals orders denying his
postconviction motion to withdraw his pleas resulting in judgments convicting him
of burglary and two sexual assault charges.   Moreno-Richey contends that he was




Nos.   2010AP2510-CR
2010AP2511-CR
entitled  to  an  evidentiary  hearing  on  whether  the  pleas  were  knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently entered and whether counsel provided ineffective
assistance.   We affirm for the reasons discussed below.
BACKGROUND
¶2                                                                                        The  charges  against  Moreno-Richey  arose  out  of  two  separate
incidents.   In the first case, a woman awoke to find a naked stranger in her bed,
kissing her and grabbing her breast.   In the second case, Moreno-Richey told a
third party that he had intercourse with a woman who was intoxicated beyond the
point where she could give consent.   The second victim had no memory of the
assault,  but she  awoke  with her  underwear  off,  and testing of  the  underwear
revealed  Moreno-Richey’s  DNA.     We  will  set  forth  additional  facts  more
specifically relating to the plea withdrawal motion in our discussion below.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶3                                                                                        A defendant who makes a supported allegation that the procedures
outlined in WIS. STAT.  § 971.08  (2009-10)1 or other mandated duties were not
followed  at the  plea  colloquy,  and further  alleges that  he  did not understand
information related to one or more defects in the colloquy, is entitled to a hearing
on his plea withdrawal motion.   State v. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, ¶¶65-67, 274
Wis. 2d 379, 683 N.W.2d 14; State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12
(1986).   A defendant who seeks to withdraw his plea on other grounds constituting
a manifest injustice, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, need only be given
1  All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise
noted.
2




Nos.   2010AP2510-CR
2010AP2511-CR
an evidentiary hearing when the defendant alleges facts which, if true, would
entitle him or her to relief.    State v. Bentley,  201 Wis.  2d  303,  309-10,  548
N.W.2d 50 (1996)  (discussing hearing standard); State v. Krieger,  163 Wis. 2d
241,  250-51,  471  N.W.2d  599  (Ct.  App.  1991)  (discussing  manifest  injustice
standard).   No hearing is required when the defendant presents only conclusory
allegations, or the record conclusively demonstrates that he or she is not entitled to
relief.    Nelson v. State,  54 Wis.  2d  489,  497-98,  195 N.W.2d  629  (1972).   A
conclusory allegation is one which provides insufficient information to allow the
court to meaningfully assess a claim.    State v. Allen,  2004 WI  106,  ¶21,  274
Wis. 2d  568, 682 N.W.2d  433.   We review the sufficiency of a postconviction
motion de novo, based on the four corners of the motion.   Id., ¶¶9, 27.
DISCUSSION
¶4                                                                                         Moreno-Richey sought to withdraw his pleas on the grounds that:
(1) his trial counsel failed to request a continuance to investigate new witnesses;
(2) counsel disclosed a confidential health record of Moreno-Richey’s without first
exploring or challenging alleged factual errors in it—namely that Moreno-Richey
said he was going to wear a mask in the future (as opposed to regretting that he
had not worn one in the past) and that he had begun using drugs at age thirteen (as
opposed  to  later  in  his  teens);  (3) counsel  failed  to  effectively cross-examine
witnesses at the preliminary hearing or challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
for  bindover;                                                                             (4) counsel  did  not  appear  at  a  hearing  to  amend  the  charges;
(5) counsel did not challenge the victim’s identification of  Moreno-Richey by
reference to a Facebook page where the victim claimed to have previously seen his
image; (6) counsel failed to evaluate whether there was any basis to challenge the
admissibility of Moreno-Richey’s statement to police; (7) counsel failed to provide
the court at sentencing with favorable statements from two additional character
3




Nos.   2010AP2510-CR
2010AP2511-CR
witnesses; and (8) both the court and counsel failed to advise Moreno-Richey of
the  maximum  potential  sentence  he  faced  on  the  third-degree  sexual  assault
charge.
¶5                                                                                       The allegations in Moreno-Richey’s motion relating to all but one of
the claims of the assistance of counsel fail to establish the prejudice prong of
ineffective assistance of counsel.   Each of these claims is conclusory in that each
asserts that counsel should have taken additional actions, but does not explain how
those additional actions would have affected Moreno-Richey’s decisions to enter
the pleas.   Specifically, Moreno-Richey does not specify what information counsel
could have learned by getting a continuance to investigate the new witnesses; how
the alleged mistakes in the psychologist’s report related to any elements of the
charges or any assessment as to the strength of the State’s case on each charge;
what additional questions counsel could have asked at the preliminary hearing and
what answers such questions were likely to produce that would have defeated
bindover;  what  factual  or  legal  basis  counsel  would  have  had  to  oppose  the
amendment of the charges; what factual basis counsel could have discovered to
challenge Moreno-Richey’s statement to police; or how anything that occurred at
sentencing could possibly have influenced Moreno-Richey’s decision to enter the
pleas.    In  other  words,  even  if  Moreno-Richey  could  establish  that  counsel
performed deficiently in any of the ways alleged, his motion does not provide
sufficient facts to establish the prejudice prong.
¶6                                                                                       The claim relating to counsel’s failure to challenge one victim’s
identification of him on a Facebook page fails to establish the deficiency prong of
ineffective assistance.   That is, it is apparent how a successful motion to suppress
the victim’s identification would affect a defendant’s decision to enter a plea, but
the defendant’s allegations do not establish that there were actual grounds for a
4




Nos.   2010AP2510-CR
2010AP2511-CR
suppression motion.   The victim’s identification was not the result of a photo array
presented by the police.   Rather, the victim informed police that she thought she
had seen her assailant in the neighborhood and on Facebook.   Since the police did
not have a suspect in mind or know what pictures the victim was referring to, there
was  no  way for  them  to  consciously or  unconsciously influence  her  viewing
Facebook pages to locate the pictures she had in mind.
¶7                                                                                         Finally,  the  record  supports  Moreno-Richey’s  allegation  that  the
court did not explicitly inform him at the plea hearing of the maximum sentence
on one of the sexual assault charges.   However, the court did conduct a colloquy
that discussed the elements of the offense, the constitutional rights the defendant
would be waiving, factors that might affect Moreno-Richey’s ability to make a
voluntary and intelligent waiver, and the factual basis for the plea.   In addition, the
record  includes  a  signed  plea  questionnaire,  which  accurately  recited  the
maximum sentence.    Moreno-Richey explicitly informed the court that he had
gone over this questionnaire and understood all of the information on it.   While a
court should not rely entirely upon a plea questionnaire in lieu of a colloquy, it is
acceptable  to  supplement  the  court’s  colloquy  through  references  to  a  plea
questionnaire.    Since the record shows that Moreno-Richey was provided with
correct information, he was not entitled to a hearing on this claim.
By the Court.—Orders affirmed.
                                                                                           This  opinion  will  not  be  published.     See  WIS.  STAT.  RULE
809.23(1)                                                                                  (b)5.
5

Download 2010ap002510-cr.pdf

Wisconsin Law