COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 9, 2010 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 I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Andre Vance, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Andre Vance, pro se, appeals from an order denying his Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion, which alleged ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. We conclude the Record fails to support Vance’s claims of error and we therefore affirm the order.
¶2 In February 1984, a jury convicted Vance on two counts each of burglary, second-degree sexual assault, and intimidation of a victim, and one count of criminal trespass to a dwelling. He was sentenced to 103 years’ imprisonment. Vance moved for a new trial and for sentence modification; those motions were denied. Vance’s attorney filed a notice of appeal, but the appeal was dismissed when counsel failed to file a brief.
¶3 In 1987, Vance retained Catherine M. Canright, Esq., who filed a Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion. That motion, not contained in the Record, appears to have alleged Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The circuit court denied the motion and this court summarily affirmed the denial. See State v. Vance, No. 1987AP899, unpublished slip op. (Nov. 30, 1987).
¶4 On April 13, 2009, Vance filed another Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion
alleging ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel and invoking State ex rel. Rothering v. McCaughtry, 205
¶5 As
we have seen, Attorney Canright was not the attorney who represented Vance in
proceedings between his conviction and direct appeal of right. Attorney Canright was hired for a collateral
attack on Vance’s conviction after his direct appeal rights lapsed. No constitutional right to counsel exists for
collateral attacks. See
¶6 Even
if we considered the ineffective-assistance claim against Attorney Canright,
Vance would not prevail because the Record does not support him. Vance claims the sentencing court improperly
relied on an uncounseled juvenile adjudication and, thus, Attorney Canright
should have brought a motion challenging the 1984 sentence.
¶7 However,
the Record contains no transcript of the 1984 sentencing hearing; we must
therefore assume the sentencing court’s decision was proper. See
Fiumefreddo
v. McLean, 174
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.