2020 WI 93
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2019AP90-CR
COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin,
Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner,
v.
George E. Savage,
Defendant-Appellant.
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Reported at 390 Wis. 2d 835,939 N.W.2d 885
(2020 – unpublished)
OPINION FILED: December 23, 2020
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT: November 9, 2020
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT: Circuit
COUNTY: Milwaukee
JUDGE: Mark A. Sanders
JUSTICES:
ZIEGLER, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous
Court.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs
filed by Sonya Bice Levinson and Donald V. Latoraca, assistant
attorneys general; with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul,
attorney general. There was an oral argument by Sonya Bice.
For the defendant-appellant, there was a brief filed by
Mark S. Rosen and Rosen and Holzman, LTD., Waukesha. There was
an oral argument by Mark S. Rosen.
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Wisconsin
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Ellen Henak, Robert
R. Henak, and Henak Law Office, S.C., Milwaukee.
2
2020 WI 93
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2019AP90-CR
(L.C. No. 2016CF3498)
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
State of Wisconsin,
Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, FILED
v. DEC 23, 2020
George E. Savage, Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
Defendant-Appellant.
ZIEGLER, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous
Court.
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Reversed.
¶1 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J. This is a review of an
unpublished decision of the court of appeals, State v. Savage,
No. 2019AP90-CR, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 22,
2020), reversing the Milwaukee County circuit court's1 judgment
and order denying George E. Savage's postconviction motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. We reverse.
¶2 Savage was charged with "violation of sex offender
registry" for failing to provide an updated address. Savage
1 The Honorable Mark A. Sanders presided.
No. 2019AP90-CR
entered a guilty plea and was sentenced. Nearly one year later,
Savage filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that
his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance such that his
plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. He argues that
his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to inform
Savage that State v. Dinkins, 2012 WI 24, 339 Wis. 2d 78, 810
N.W.2d 787, provided him with an allegedly viable defense that,
as a homeless registrant, he is "exempt" from sex offender
registration requirements. Savage asserts that if he had known
of this alleged defense, he would not have pleaded guilty to the
charge and would have instead proceeded to trial.
¶3 After a Machner2 hearing on Savage's postconviction
motion, the circuit court denied Savage's motion, explaining
that Savage's trial counsel did not provide ineffective
assistance because Dinkins was inapplicable to his case. The
court of appeals reversed, holding that the circuit court
misconstrued Dinkins, and remanded the case to the circuit court
to analyze Savage's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
The court of appeals' interpretation of Dinkins is wrong.
¶4 We conclude that counsel was not ineffective and
Savage is not entitled to withdraw his plea post-sentencing.
Savage failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
manifest injustice merits plea withdrawal because Dinkins does
not conclude that homeless sex offenders are "exempt" from
2 State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App.
1979).
2
No. 2019AP90-CR
registration requirements. Thus, Savage's trial counsel did not
provide ineffective assistance in failing to inform Savage about
Dinkins because Dinkins does not provide Savage with a defense.3
Accordingly, we reverse.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
¶5 On November 3, 2014, Savage was convicted of exposing
his genitals to a child. For this conviction, the circuit court
imposed a sentence of one year and six months of initial
confinement with two years of extended supervision.
Additionally, the circuit court ordered Savage to register as a
sex offender for ten years, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.048
(2017-18).4 While on the sex offender registry, Savage was
required to comply with the reporting requirements under Wis.
Stat. § 301.45, including providing updated information to the
Department of Corrections (DOC) at regular intervals.
¶6 On March 22, 2016, the day before his initial
confinement was to end, Savage signed a Sex Offender
Registration form. This form essentially restates the
3 The court of appeals wrongly withheld its independent
review of Savage's claim based on a misreading of State v.
Sholar, 2018 WI 53, 381 Wis. 2d 560, 912 N.W.2d 89. While it is
true that Sholar requires the court of appeals to leave both the
deficient performance and prejudice prongs to be addressed after
a Machner hearing, Sholar's holding presupposes a Machner
hearing has not yet occurred. See id., ¶54. In this case, the
circuit court held a Machner hearing. Accordingly, the court of
appeals could have analyzed both Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668 (1984), prongs.
4 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to
the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated.
3
No. 2019AP90-CR
requirements of Wis. Stat. § 301.45 and registers an individual
on the sex offender registry. The statute and the form require
that a sex offender registrant provide information and
subsequent changes to that information such as the registrant's
residence, employment, e-mail addresses, internet identifiers,
school enrollment, and name change. On the form, instead of
listing an address, Savage indicated that he was homeless. At
the end of this form was a "Notice of Requirements to Register."
It stated, in relevant part, that "when on Wisconsin [DOC]
Supervision" the registrant must, "prior to any change in
residence, employment, school enrollment, email addresses,
internet identifiers, or name change, report the change directly
to [the registrant's] assigned Community Corrections Agent.
[The Registrant] will also report the change to [the Sex
Offender Registry Program] . . . ." Savage initialed after this
section to indicate that he understood the requirement for
reporting changes in information to his Community Corrections
Agent and the Sex Offender Registry Program.
¶7 The following day, Savage was released from his
confinement. Because of his homelessness, Savage was placed on
a discretionary GPS monitor, pursuant to DOC Administrative
Directive #15-12.5 This guidance document requires a homeless
sex offender registrant to "call and speak with the [Probation
and Parole Agent] once every seven days, on a weekday, to report
5 We took judicial notice of this Directive on July 15,
2020.
4
No. 2019AP90-CR
'HOMELESS' status and the location(s) in the city where he/she
has been frequenting and sleeping for the previous seven days
and plans for the next seven days." DOC Admin. Directive #15-
12. The sex offender registrant must also "report the addresses
or nearest locations where he/she has frequented and slept, and
his/her anticipated residence plan for the upcoming week" and
"also update any other required registry data changes." Id.
¶8 Savage remained compliant with his sex offender
registry requirements for several months. However, on May 5,
2016, Savage cut off his GPS bracelet and absconded from
supervision. Savage's Community Corrections Agent informed the
Sex Offender Registry Program of his absconder status on May 18,
2016.
¶9 Savage called the Sex Offender Registry Program
hotline twice over the next month providing an updated address,
but he never called to update his Community Corrections Agent,
as the Sex Offender Registration form required.6 Savage's last
confirmed call to the hotline occurred on June 17, 2016. From
May 5 until he was subsequently arrested, Savage continued his
non-compliance with supervision.
¶10 On August 4, 2016, the State filed a criminal
complaint in the circuit court charging Savage with a single
count of "violation of sex offender registry." The State
alleged Savage "knowingly failed to comply with reporting
6Savage claims he called two more times, but the Sex
Offender Registry Program had no record of these calls nor the
message he claims he left.
5
No. 2019AP90-CR
requirements under Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45(2) to (4), contrary to
Wis. Stat. § 301.45(6), contrary to [Wis. Stat.
§§] 301.45(6)(a)1., 939.50(3)(h)." Specifically, Savage "failed
to provide the [DOC] with updated information after a change to
the information required to be provided by Wis. Stat. sec.
301.45(2)(a)." Savage's judgment of conviction from his 2014
crime and his signed Sex Offender Registration Form were
attached to the criminal complaint. The court issued a felony
arrest warrant for Savage.
¶11 Savage was arrested and made his initial appearance
before the circuit court on February 17, 2017. The court found
probable cause for the charge and advised Savage of the maximum
penalties, stating, if convicted, he "could face maximum
penalties of a $10,000 fine, six years imprisonment." Savage
stated that he understood these charges. In a discussion about
bail and bail conditions, Savage's trial counsel stated the
following:
I believe for Mr. Savage, Your Honor, this is not a
situation where he's unwilling or refusing to follow
any registry requirements. He, given homelessness,
simply has been unable to do so given that he's simply
not going to be able to post any cash bail whatsoever.
As the court is aware, there is the felony [violation
of parole] hold in place for Mr. Savage. I would ask
for a PR bond or a minimum amount of cash bail. I
doubt he could pay anything at all.
The court ordered a $1,000 signature bond with conditions.
¶12 On February 28, 2017, Savage waived his right to a
preliminary hearing, and the State filed an Information alleging
the same criminal count and penalties stated in the complaint.
6
No. 2019AP90-CR
Savage then entered a plea of not guilty to the charge contained
in the Information.
¶13 On May 23, 2017, after learning that the parties
reached a plea agreement, the circuit court held a plea hearing.
The State informed the court that "[Savage] will be pleading as
charged. At sentencing, the state will recommend one year in
the House of Correction." Savage filed his Plea
Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights form indicating that he would
plead guilty to the charge.7
¶14 Savage does not assert that the circuit court
conducted a defective plea colloquy. Rather, his argument is
7The record also contains a copy of the jury instruction,
which Savage separately initialed, listing the elements of
failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements,
as follows:
1. The defendant was a person who was required to
provide information under [Wis. Stat. §] 301.45.
A person who is required to comply with the sex
offender registration is required to provide
information under section 301.45.
2. The defendant failed to provide information as
required.
Section 301.45[(4)] provides that persons
required to provide information under section
301.45 must provide changes to school;
employment; addresses as required by law.
3. The defendant knowingly failed to provide the
required information.
This requires that the defendant knew that [he]
was required to provide the information.
Wis. JI——Criminal 2198 (2012) (modified).
7
No. 2019AP90-CR
that because counsel did not properly advise him of a defense
under Dinkins, his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily made.
¶15 Immediately after accepting Savage's guilty plea, the
circuit court heard arguments from both the State and Savage
regarding sentencing. The State, in accordance with the plea
agreement, recommended one year in the House of Corrections. As
relevant to this appeal, Savage's trial counsel made the
following sentencing argument regarding his homelessness:
There are so many components and collateral
[e]ffects of these registry requirements that can make
it very difficult for people who have nothing to
comply with it. I don't know how you can return a
letter if you don't have an address for which the
letter to be sent.
I believe that was the issue for Mr. Savage and
sadly for many others that they are incarcerated.
Ultimately the sentence is finished, completed, and
they are released but often released back into the
community with nothing. And I believe that was the
situation for Mr. Savage.
In reviewing the notes from the agent and the
registry, he was, in fact, calling in, leaving
messages with phone numbers, with addresses, emails
which he could actually access at a library or other
community centers and trying to do so.
In fact, at one point in time his agent told him,
meaning Mr. Savage, to use her office address as he
would need to see her and then they could continue
with the compliance requirements of the registry.
It is noted in those reports it appears his
intent was to remain compliant, but there's also an
acknowledgment that it can be difficult. And I quote,
"This is happening quite a bit especially with the
homeless."
8
No. 2019AP90-CR
I believe that is exactly the situation for
Mr. Savage. The GPS here was discretionary. I don't
know what the thought was behind that or the
reasoning. But Mr. Savage literally was staying where
he could whether it was empty buildings, back of a
car, stairwells.
In speaking with him and hearing his experiences
were just frankly horrifying that any individual would
have to go through that. I believe he was doing the
best he could.
It's so difficult already to find housing,
employment, basic services, being part of the registry
and then to also throw on what I refer to as an
electronic tether for Mr. Savage. I believe he became
frustrated, aggravated, and cut it off and then didn't
report.
He was also told that because it was
discretionary -– This is also in the notes that, "A
felony charge -– again I'm quoting, "for tampering
with it could not be issued. We will wait to see the
outcome of the letter for any further noncompliance."
I also note they kept sending letters to an
address where, in fact, the letters were returned.
The act of non-reporting, not reporting to his agent
ultimately led in Mr. Savage being served with
revocation papers.
There was a hearing. The agent was seeking all
the time available, two years and three days; and
that's exactly what Mr. Savage received.
Outside of the court system, he now is in the
prison system and will be serving two years and three
days.
I would ask this court to consider that as I know
you would but also ask this court to run a sentence
here concurrent to that two years. It's a significant
amount of time for Mr. Savage. He's not going to be
involved in any programming.
After hearing the sentencing arguments, the circuit court did
not follow the plea agreement and instead sentenced Savage to 30
9
No. 2019AP90-CR
months of initial confinement followed by 24 months of extended
supervision to run concurrently with his current sentence.8
¶16 On April 10, 2018, 11 months after being sentenced,
Savage filed a postconviction motion seeking to withdraw his
guilty plea. Savage claimed that he should be allowed to
withdraw his plea because he received ineffective assistance of
trial counsel. Specifically, he claimed that his trial counsel
was ineffective for "failing to inform him that he could not be
convicted of his failure to provide an address as part of his
Sex Offender Registration Requirements due to his homelessness."9
On June 11, 2018, the State filed its response to Savage's
postconviction motion.
¶17 On January 3, 2019, the circuit court held a Machner
hearing regarding Savage's ineffective assistance of counsel
claim. At the hearing, the circuit court heard from both
Savage's trial counsel and Savage. As is relevant to this
8Savage was already serving a revocation sentence of two
years and three days, of which 21 months remained. Because of
the concurrent nature of the sentences, the circuit court's
sentence for "violation of sex offender registry" added nine
months on to Savage's confinement from his revocation and placed
him on extended supervision for an additional 24 months.
9Savage also claimed that his trial counsel promised him
that any sentence he received from his plea would run
concurrently such that he would not serve additional time in
jail beyond his current supervision revocation sentence. The
circuit court held that his trial counsel did not deficiently
perform regarding this claim and denied Savage's motion to
withdraw his plea based on this claim. Savage did not appeal
the circuit court's determination on this claim to this court,
so we do not address it.
10
No. 2019AP90-CR
appeal, Savage's postconviction counsel engaged in the following
questioning of Savage's trial counsel:
Q. Okay. Now, also [Savage] was homeless, correct?
A. It's my understanding he was homeless. I
discussed with him that homelessness was not an
absolute defense to the charge.
I explained as well there was, in fact, a
homeless protocol in place through the Sex
Offender Registry. For lack of a better word,
I'll call them specialists working with DOC.
. . . .
Q. Okay. Now, you agree that you're familiar with
State versus Dinkins, correct?
A. Somewhat.
Q. Just for the record, that is Supreme Court case
339 Wis. 2d 78, 2012. And that does state that
homelessness is not a defense, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But it also indicates that, "An inability to
provide an address such as if someone is living
on a park bench or a stairwell is a defense to
registration requirement."
A. If that's what you believe the decision stands
for.
. . . .
Q. And you never advised Mr. Savage that an
inability to provide an address is a defense,
correct?
A. No. Because there was a bigger issue that he
also cut off the GPS monitoring unit.
Q. Right. Which you told the judge was
discretionary, correct?
11
No. 2019AP90-CR
A. According to the author of the report, it was
discretionary. But the specialist or another
employee had placed that GPS monitoring unit on
Mr. Savage prior to his period of non-compliance.
¶18 On cross-examination, the State asked Savage's trial
counsel the following questions:
Q. And you're familiar with the homelessness
protocol?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is a protocol that is I guess maybe even
more prevalent since the [Dinkins] decision. And
you've seen that protocol [be] used in other
situations; is that fair?
A. I have. And I've also spoken to specialists at
the preliminary hearing to inquire specifically
more details of that protect [sic] so I could
share it with clients who are facing that
situation.
Q. Because ultimately if people can become compliant
and aware and understand the protocol, it
benefits everybody; is that fair?
A. Very much so.
Q. So you have it sounds like almost done your own
research into the homelessness protocol so that
you would be able to better explain it to other
clients that you had had. Is that accurate?
A. That is. I've asked the specialist specifically
what it is, and I can share it with other
individuals. I even asked if they had a written
one. I wasn't given a written one that described
that they would accept park locations, cross
streets as long as a call was made in accordance
with the registry conditions.
. . . .
Q. Did you have adequate time to discuss all of
Mr. Savage's options with him on proceeding to
12
No. 2019AP90-CR
trial or accepting a plea, any following of the
homelessness [protocol], any of those?
A. I did. I had given Mr. Savage my direct office
line so he could reach me for which he did not
need money or phone cards. And I actually met
with him at the jail as well in person to afford
him a level of privacy and confidentiality that's
not always available over the phone given that
they are public at the jail or the House of
Correction[s] and had discussions with him about
both the revocation hearing and the pending case.
¶19 After a brief redirect, the circuit court heard
testimony from Savage. As relevant to this appeal, Savage's
postconviction counsel asked him the following questions:
Q. Okay. What did [your trial counsel] ever tell
you about good faith efforts to comply with sex
offender supervision requirements?
A. Nothing.
Q. Did she ever discuss that sort of defense with
you?
A. No.
¶20 Savage argued that Dinkins provided him with a defense
because of his homelessness and had he known about the defense,
he would have taken his case to trial. The State countered by
pointing to Savage's trial counsel's familiarity with
homelessness claims and her own research into the DOC's homeless
sex offender registrant protocol. Thus, the State argued that
Savage's trial counsel was not deficient and that any alleged
deficiency did not prejudice Savage.
¶21 After the parties finished their arguments, the
circuit court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
court found Savage's trial counsel's testimony "more credible,
13
No. 2019AP90-CR
more persuasive, and to carry the day." Moving to the circuit
court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court
stated the following:
With respect to the [homelessness defense] claim
by the defense, there is likewise no prejudice. That
is because the defense misconstrues the decision in
Dinkins.
Dinkins contains the words that are recited by
the defense but does not contain the meaning for which
it is cited.
The [Dinkins] decision involves a defendant who
is in custody on a sex related crime. The defendant
is being released at his maximum discharge date and
will no longer be supervised by anyone.
Consistent with statute, the defendant was
required to report to the Sex Offender Registry within
ten days of his release –- that is, prior to release,
where he was going to live.
The defendant didn't do that. He didn't do that
because he was in custody and was unable to find a
place to live.
. . . .
. . . The defense presents a semantic argument.
The defense says, of course, homelessness isn't a
defense; but not knowing where you are going to live
and not having a home is a defense which is being
homeless.
That is not what Dinkins stands for. Dinkins
stands for the proposition that if it is impossible
for a person to report an address because of something
outside of their control like, for example, being in
prison at the time, then there may be a defense. That
is not Mr. [Savage's] circumstance.
[His trial counsel] did not tell [Savage] that he
had a defense in Dinkins. That is because he did not
have a defense in Dinkins.
14
No. 2019AP90-CR
As a result, there is not prejudice as a result
of her not telling him that there was a defense.
Having found that there was not prejudice . . . ,
I will deny the defense motion for postconviction
relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶22 Savage appealed. On January 22, 2020, the court of
appeals reversed the circuit court. Savage, No. 2019AP90-CR,
¶3. The court of appeals concluded, contrary to the circuit
court, that Dinkins may have provided a defense to Savage. Id.,
¶26. The court of appeals stated that it was "neither finding
that trial counsel's performance was deficient nor that Savage
suffered any prejudice." Id., ¶31. Instead, because of its
interpretation of this court's holding in State v. Sholar, 2018
WI 53, 381 Wis. 2d 560, 912 N.W.2d 89, the court of appeals
remanded the case to the circuit court "to make the proper
findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Savage's
allegations that trial counsel was ineffective in representing
him" in light of the court of appeals' interpretation of
Dinkins. Savage, No. 2019AP90-CR, ¶31.
¶23 On February 20, 2020, the State petitioned this court
for review. We granted the petition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶24 Savage asks this court to review the circuit court's
denial of his postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
We review a circuit court's decision to deny a plea withdrawal
motion under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard.
State v. Nash, 2020 WI 85, ¶27, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___N.W.2d ___.
A defendant seeking to withdraw a plea after sentencing must
15
No. 2019AP90-CR
show by clear and convincing evidence that "allowing the
withdrawal of the plea 'is necessary to correct a manifest
injustice.'" Id., ¶32 (quoting State v. Smith, 202 Wis. 2d 21,
25, 549 N.W.2d 232 (1996)).
¶25 "One way to demonstrate manifest injustice is to
establish that the defendant received ineffective assistance of
counsel." State v. Dillard, 2014 WI 123, ¶84, 358 Wis. 2d 543,
859 N.W.2d 44. "Whether a defendant was denied effective
assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact."
State v. Breitzman, 2017 WI 100, ¶37, 378 Wis. 2d 431, 904
N.W.2d 93. "The factual circumstances of the case and trial
counsel's conduct and strategy are findings of fact, which will
not be overturned unless clearly erroneous; whether counsel's
conduct constitutes ineffective assistance is a question of law,
which we review de novo." Id. Ineffective assistance of
counsel claims have two prongs: "counsel's performance was
deficient and that deficient performance was prejudicial." Id.
We review de novo whether Savage has proven his trial counsel
provided constitutionally deficient assistance and, if so,
whether counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him. Id.,
¶¶38-39. "If the defendant fails to satisfy either prong, we
need not consider the other." Id., ¶37.
III. ANALYSIS
¶26 We begin our analysis with a discussion of ineffective
assistance of counsel claims generally before turning to
Savage's ineffective assistance of counsel claim in this case.
16
No. 2019AP90-CR
A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Generally
¶27 "The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the
effective assistance of counsel at 'critical stages of a
criminal proceeding,' including when he enters a guilty plea."
Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1964
(2017).10 To demonstrate constitutionally ineffective assistance
of counsel, a "defendant must show that counsel's performance
was deficient" and "that the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). While the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to
effective assistance of counsel, this right's purpose is "not to
improve the quality of legal representation . . . . The purpose
is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair
trial." Id. at 689. Accordingly, "[s]urmounting Strickland's
high bar is never an easy task." Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S.
356, 371 (2010).
1. Deficient Performance Prong
¶28 The first prong of an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim asks whether counsel performed deficiently.
Breitzman, 378 Wis. 2d 431, ¶38. Establishing that counsel's
performance was deficient "requires showing that counsel made
errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the
'counsel' guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland,
466 U.S. at 687. Stated another way, when evaluating whether
This right was incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment
10
and applies to the states. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335, 342-43 (1963) (acknowledging incorporation).
17
No. 2019AP90-CR
counsel performed deficiently, a defendant must demonstrate that
counsel's performance fell below "an objective standard of
reasonableness." Breitzman, 378 Wis. 2d 431, ¶38 (quoting State
v. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, ¶19, 264 Wis. 2d 571, 665 N.W.2d 305).
Courts afford great deference to trial counsel's conduct,
presuming that it "falls within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance." Id. (quoting State v. Carter, 2010 WI
40, ¶22, 324 Wis. 2d 640, 782 N.W.2d 695). Moreover, in
analyzing whether performance was deficient, "every effort
[should] be made to eliminate the distorting effects of
hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's
challenged conduct, and to evaluate from counsel's perspective
at the time." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.
¶29 Accordingly, courts evaluate whether counsel
deficiently performed on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 688-
89 ("No particular set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct
can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances
faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions
regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant."). While
each case is evaluated on the specific facts before the court,
certain conduct of counsel will generally fall below the
objective standard of reasonableness. See, e.g., Porter v.
McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 39-40 (2009) (per curiam) (holding
counsel deficiently performed by failing to conduct a thorough
investigation of the defendant's background); State v. Domke,
2011 WI 95, ¶41, 337 Wis. 2d 268, 805 N.W.2d 364 ("Counsel must
either reasonably investigate the law and facts or make a
18
No. 2019AP90-CR
reasonable strategic decision that makes any further
investigation unnecessary."); Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S.
470, 477 (2000) ("[A] lawyer who disregards specific
instructions from the defendant to file a notice of appeal acts
in a manner that is professionally unreasonable."); State v.
Lemberger, 2017 WI 39, ¶18, 374 Wis. 2d 617, 893 N.W.2d 232
("[F]ailure to raise arguments that require the resolution of
unsettled legal questions generally does not render a lawyer's
services 'outside the wide range of professional competent
assistance' sufficient to satisfy the Sixth Amendment." (quoted
sources omitted)).
¶30 The permissible range of options for counsel is vast.
As such, "ineffective assistance of counsel cases should be
limited to situations where the law or duty is clear . . . ."
Breitzman, 378 Wis. 2d 431, ¶49 (quoting Lemberger, 374
Wis. 2d 617, ¶33).
¶31 Thus, to satisfy the first prong of an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must establish, based
on the totality of the circumstances, that counsel's performance
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
2. Prejudice Prong
¶32 After establishing that counsel performed deficiently,
the second prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
asks "[w]hether any deficient performance was prejudicial."
Breitzman, 378 Wis. 2d 431, ¶39. To show prejudice, a defendant
must show "that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive
the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is
19
No. 2019AP90-CR
reliable." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Explained further, to
prove prejudice, "a defendant must show that there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel's professional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."
Id. at 694.
¶33 We have previously stated that "[w]hen the alleged
deficiency concerns the plea process, Hill says the prejudice
component specifically requires that 'the defendant must show
that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted
on going to trial.'" State v. Cooper, 2019 WI 73, ¶29, 387
Wis. 2d 439, 929 N.W.2d 192 (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.
52, 59 (1985)). This inquiry "focuses on a defendant's
decisionmaking, which may not turn solely on the likelihood of
conviction after trial." Lee, 137 S. Ct. at 1966. In Lee, the
United States Supreme Court explained the Hill inquiry further:
A defendant without any viable defense will be
highly likely to lose at trial. And a defendant
facing such long odds will rarely be able to show
prejudice from accepting a guilty plea that offers him
a better resolution than would be likely after trial.
But that is not because the prejudice inquiry in this
context looks to the probability of a conviction for
its own sake. It is instead because defendants
obviously weigh their prospects at trial in deciding
whether to accept a plea. See Hill, [474 U.S. at 59].
Where a defendant has no plausible chance of an
acquittal at trial, it is highly likely that he will
accept a plea if the Government offers one.
But common sense (not to mention our precedent)
recognizes that there is more to consider than simply
the likelihood of success at trial. The decision
whether to plead guilty also involves assessing the
20
No. 2019AP90-CR
respective consequences of a conviction after trial
and by plea. See INS v. St. Cyr, [533 U.S. 289, 322–
323 (2001)]. When those consequences are, from the
defendant's perspective, similarly dire, even the
smallest chance of success at trial may look
attractive. For example, a defendant with no
realistic defense to a charge carrying a 20–year
sentence may nevertheless choose trial, if the
prosecution's plea offer is 18 years. Here Lee
alleges that avoiding deportation was the
determinative factor for him; deportation after some
time in prison was not meaningfully different from
deportation after somewhat less time. He says he
accordingly would have rejected any plea leading to
deportation——even if it shaved off prison time——in
favor of throwing a "Hail Mary" at trial.
Id. at 1966-67. As this passage indicates, while generally a
defendant will change his or her plea only if there is a
reasonable probability of success on the merits, there may be
particularized circumstances that may cause the defendant to
change his or her plea.
¶34 However, the United States Supreme Court did not go so
far as to endorse a fully subjective standard either. As the
Court explained, "[a]s a general matter, it makes sense that a
defendant who has no realistic defense to a charge supported by
sufficient evidence will be unable to carry his burden of
showing prejudice from accepting a guilty plea." Id. at 1966.
Further, the Court stated that "[c]ourts should not upset a plea
solely because of post hoc assertions from a defendant about how
he would have pleaded but for his attorney's deficiencies.
Judges should instead look to contemporaneous evidence to
substantiate a defendant's expressed preferences." Id. at 1967.
21
No. 2019AP90-CR
¶35 As Lee instructs, to show prejudice from accepting a
plea, the defendant has two independently sufficient options to
prove that he or she would have not pleaded guilty and would
have instead proceeded to trial. First, the defendant can
demonstrate based on "contemporaneous evidence" that counsel's
deficient performance so offended "expressed preferences" such
that the defendant would have not pleaded guilty. See id.
Second, the defendant can demonstrate that the defense would
have likely succeeded at trial. See id. at 1966.
¶36 Upon showing that counsel's deficient performance
caused prejudice, the defendant has successfully cleared
Strickland's high bar.
B. Savage's Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶37 Applying those principles, we turn to Savage's claim
that his trial counsel failed to raise a defense under Dinkins.
To succeed on this claim, Savage must show that his trial
counsel's performance fell below an objectively reasonable
standard. A trial counsel performance generally falls below an
objectively reasonable standard when counsel fails to raise an
issue of settled law. See Breitzman, 378 Wis. 2d 431, ¶49; see
also Lemberger, 374 Wis. 2d 617, ¶33. The question in this case
is whether Dinkins provided Savage with a defense to his
"violation of sex offender registry" charge and that if he had
known of this defense, he would have changed his plea. We
conclude that Dinkins does not provide a defense to Savage, so
trial counsel did not perform deficiently. Thus, Savage's claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel fails.
22
No. 2019AP90-CR
¶38 Turning to the first prong of the Strickland analysis,
we must consider whether Savage's trial counsel performed
deficiently. To prove deficient performance, Savage must show
that Dinkins provides him with a defense and his trial counsel
failed to raise such a defense. See Breitzman, 378 Wis. 2d 431,
¶49. Dinkins provides no such defense for Savage.
¶39 In Dinkins, this court was addressing a homeless
defendant's conviction for failing to provide an address for the
sex offender registry. See Dinkins, 339 Wis. 2d 78, ¶5. In so
doing, this court answered the "narrow question of whether,
under the circumstances where Dinkins attempted to comply with
the registration requirements but was unable to find housing, he
can be convicted of a felony for failing to notify the DOC of
'[t]he address at which' he would 'be residing' upon his release
from prison." Id., ¶28. The court answered this question in
the negative, stating:
[A] registrant cannot be convicted of violating Wis.
Stat. § 301.45(6) for failing to report the address at
which he will be residing when he is unable to provide
this information . . . . [A] registrant is unable to
provide the required information when that information
does not exist, despite the registrant's reasonable
attempt to provide it.
Id., ¶63.
¶40 To reach this conclusion, the court interpreted
several statutory provisions from Wis. Stat. § 301.45, including
§ 301.45(2)(d). See id., ¶¶30-32. Wisconsin Stat.
§ 301.45(2)(d) provides, in relevant part:
23
No. 2019AP90-CR
A person subject to [the registration requirements]
who is not under the supervision of the [DOC] or the
[DHS] shall provide the information specified in par.
(a) to the [DOC] in accordance with the rules under
sub. (8). If the person is unable to provide an item
of information specified in par. (a), the [DOC] may
request assistance from a circuit court or the [DHS]
in obtaining that item of information.
The court relied on the "unable to provide" language from this
statute to reach its conclusion that "a registrant cannot be
convicted of violating Wis. Stat. § 301.45(6) . . . when he [is]
unable to provide this information." Dinkins, 339 Wis. 2d 78,
¶52.11
¶41 With this understanding of Dinkins, it is evident that
Savage does not have a defense under Dinkins for three reasons.
First, Savage was under the supervision of the DOC, so he was
required to report information pursuant to a different
subsection of the statute than Dinkins analyzed. Second, the
court in Dinkins recognized that the DOC Administrative
Directive #15-12 may have addressed the problem in Dinkins.
Finally, the holding in Dinkins must be couched within the
factual record in which it rests and is inapplicable to Savage
because of key factual differences.
11The court further explained that "a registrant is unable
to provide the required information when that information does
not exist, despite the registrant's reasonable attempt to
provide it." State v. Dinkins, 2012 WI 24, ¶52, 339 Wis. 2d 78,
810 N.W.2d 787. Relying on this explanation and Dinkins'
attempts to comply with the statute, the court determined that
Dinkins could not be convicted for violating Wis. Stat.
§ 301.45(6). Id., ¶63.
24
No. 2019AP90-CR
¶42 As discussed above, Dinkins reached its conclusion
based on Wis. Stat. § 301.45(2)(d). However, Savage was not
subjected to the requirements of § 301.45(2)(d). Because he was
under DOC supervision, Savage was subject to the requirements of
§ 301.45(2)(b). Section 301.45(2)(b) provides that "[i]f the
[DOC] has supervision over a person subject to sub. (1g), the
[DOC] shall enter into the registry under this section the
information specified in par. (a) concerning the person." This
statute does not contain the same "unable to provide" language
upon which the court in Dinkins relied. Compare § 301.45(2)(b)
with § 301.45(2)(d). Any hypothetical defenses formulated based
upon the "unable to provide" holding in Dinkins cannot be
imputed to a case dealing with a defendant who is under DOC
supervision pursuant to § 301.45(2)(b). In Dinkins, we
recognized this limitation of our holding. Dinkins, 339
Wis. 2d 78, ¶53 ("We emphasize that our interpretation of the
statute is unlikely to apply to a large number of registrants.
Typically, registrants leaving prison will be under the
supervision of the DOC or the DHS."). Thus, the "unable to
provide" language from Dinkins does not provide Savage with a
defense to his "violation of sex offender registry" charge as he
claims.
¶43 Furthermore, DOC's Administrative Directive #15-12
regarding homeless sex offender registrants undermines Savage's
claim that Dinkins provides him with a defense. Prior to this
court announcing its decision in Dinkins, the DOC promulgated
25
No. 2019AP90-CR
DOC Administrative Directive #11-04.12 Id., ¶¶53-54. Despite it
not applying to the facts in Dinkins, this court noted that "the
DOC has promulgated new reporting requirements and guidelines
for addressing the problem presented in this case." Id., ¶54.
This statement shows that those to whom the DOC's Administrative
Directive applies, like Savage, may be outside the scope of any
hypothetical Dinkins defenses.
¶44 Similarly, the factual differences between Dinkins and
this case demonstrate that, even if Dinkins provided a defense,
Savage would not qualify. Dinkins' charge stemmed from "failing
to provide his residence [ten] days prior to release from
prison" and the circuit court found Dinkins "attempted to comply
with the statute, but has been unable to find housing for
himself upon release." Id., ¶¶20-21. In contrast, Savage was
already released from prison when he was charged. Moreover, his
charge stemmed from his decision to cut off his GPS bracelet and
abscond——failing to provide the DOC with updated information
about where he was living within ten days of a change. Thus,
any argument that Savage is similar to the defendant in Dinkins
and entitled to a similar defense fails.
¶45 Therefore, Dinkins does not provide a defense to
Savage. Savage cannot demonstrate that his trial counsel
deficiently performed, and we need not address prejudice. See
Breitzman, 378 Wis. 2d 431, ¶37. As a result, Savage cannot
DOC Administrative Directive #11-04 was superseded by the
12
DOC Administrative Directive #15-12 on March 1, 2015.
26
No. 2019AP90-CR
prove that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Accordingly, we conclude that Savage failed to demonstrate
manifest injustice, and the circuit court did not erroneously
exercise its discretion when it denied Savage's motion to
withdraw his guilty plea.
IV. CONCLUSION
¶46 We conclude that counsel was not ineffective and
Savage is not entitled to withdraw his plea post-sentencing.
Savage failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
manifest injustice merits plea withdrawal because Dinkins does
not conclude that homeless sex offenders are "exempt" from
registration requirements. Thus, Savage's trial counsel did not
provide ineffective assistance in failing to inform Savage about
Dinkins because Dinkins does not provide Savage with a defense.
Accordingly, we reverse.
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is
reversed.
27
No. 2019AP90-CR
1
State v. George E. Savage
Combined Opinion