COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 25, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT IV |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Clair Ellsworth Visgar,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Higginbotham, P.J., Dykman and Lundsten, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Clair Ellsworth Visgar appeals an order denying Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2005-06)[1] relief from a conviction for substantial battery as a habitual criminal. Visgar pled guilty and was sentenced in May 2004. His postconviction motion and supplemental motion alleged four grounds to withdraw his plea. The circuit court denied the motions, and we affirm.
¶2 Visgar alleged in his motions that his speedy trial right was
violated. However, a defendant who
pleads guilty waives his or her right to a speedy trial. Hatcher v. State, 83
¶3 Visgar next alleged that he was unable to comprehend the
consequences of his plea due to the psychotropic drugs he was taking when he
entered his plea. To obtain relief on a
postconviction motion, the defendant must state sufficient facts to allow the
reviewing court to meaningfully assess the claim. See
¶4 Visgar next alleged that the presiding judge should have
transferred venue to another county because the judge knew the father of
Visgar’s victim as a person who formerly ran courthouse security, was a retired
police officer, and was formerly president of the
¶5 Finally, Visgar alleged ineffective assistance from his trial attorneys in their failure to raise the speedy trial, medication, and judicial bias issues during the proceeding. As we have held, there was no basis to claim a speedy trial violation, and Visgar waived his judicial bias claim on the record. Also, as discussed above, Visgar alleged insufficient facts to obtain a hearing on his claim that he was too medicated to understand the proceeding. He has similarly alleged insufficient facts to obtain a hearing on his claim that counsel should have raised the issue at the time.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.