Ineffective assistance of counsel
In a fact-specific discussion that precludes summary here, the court of appeals holds Anton’s trial attorney was not ineffective for: failing to object to testimony about telephone calls between Anton and a detective, as the evidence was not prejudicial (¶¶10-13); failing to call two witnesses, as counsel’s decision not to call them was reasonable (¶¶14-22); failing to object to admission of the victim’s entire statement, as Anton doesn’t develop his argument that counsel was deficient and any failure to object was not prejudicial (¶¶23-24); or failing to persuade Anton to testify, as counsel had reasonable tactical justifications for telling Anton he did not need to testify (¶¶25-26).
The trial court engaged in a proper exercise of sentencing discretion under State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶17, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, and Anton’s 40-year sentence for four counts of child sexual assault was well within the maximum (he faced 140 years) and is not so excessive as to shock public sentiment. (¶¶28-32). Anton’s argument to the contrary is “undeveloped” and “conclusorily” stated. (¶¶28, 31).