≡ Menu

COA rejects IAC claims on deficient performance and prejudice grounds

State v. Julie A. Minnema, 2022AP446-CR, District 4, 6/8/23 (one-judge decision, not eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In an unusually lengthy OWI second appeal, the court rejects Minnema’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims either because Minnema failed to establish deficient performance or because Minnema failed to establish prejudice. (Opinion, ¶1).

At trial, Minnema’s defense was that she started drinking after arriving at her residence and only in response to a stressful interaction with her then husband. (Op., ¶¶7-8). Thereafter, when a deputy, who was home on his lunchbreak, observed the interaction and approached Minnema, the evidence of intoxication he observed, and the eventual .282 BAC result, had nothing to do with Minnema’s prior operation of her vehicle. A jury convicted Minnema of the OWI charge, as well as PAC, resisiting arrest and felony bail jumping.

Postconviction and on appeal, Minnema argued that her trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective in four ways: (1) failing to demand and review all discovery; (2) failing to object to an amended criminal complaint and an untimely witness list; (3) failing to investigate the deputy’s account of the incident and the reliability of the blood vial used to store her blood draw; and (4) failing to object to the admission of other acts evidence. (Op., ¶11).

In the opposite of short order, the court rejects each of Minnema’s claims. With regard to Minnema’s claims that her trial counsel failed to investigate the deputy’s account and failed to object to other acts evidence, the court concludes that Minnema failed to meet her burden to establish deficient performance. With regard to the other claims, the court assumes deficient performance, but concludes Minnema failed to establish prejudice. (Op., ¶¶59-60).

{ 1 comment… add one }
  • michael burwell July 26, 2023, 12:30 am

    Had it not happened to me I would think people were lying but I here DUI now and first thing I think about is that person more likely than not is probably innocent because basically the cops locate someone they “feel” can’t pass a blood test and then the coops do a little theatre for the body cameras and the default”I smell alcohol”. My first DUI I should not have driven and it was a n error on my part however then II got stopped for registration on my plates and the cop saw a previous possession charge and took me right to the hospital. Test cam back clean EXCEPT I took two Tylenol PM’s the night before and the the prosecutor used the to “justify” th charges and then told my attorney if I fought the DUI they would ask for the max for the possession charge that was a seperate nident. So I could plead guilty and get probation and a 2nd DUI for tasking Tylenol PM over 12hr prior to driving. In an unbelievable turn of events I got charged with a 3rd DUI, again had not been drinking but all these cops need to do is lie a little and a judge rubber stamps blood draw and good luck proving that the cop lied in court. Nobody in court readys anything but the police report, the prosecutor doesn’t look at the body camera video or anything (in my case the officer got rid of the front facing dash camera video. I was not repeating my 2nd DUI so I spent thousands of hours DIY lawyer school and got rid of my first lawyer because he wouldn’t listen to me that the bodycam video time stamp proves an illegal stop was made. It shocked me to learn prosecutor just reads the report the most biased document attached to any case, the video shows the truth.
    Then I filed a 1983 civil case against the officer and then they arrested me for posting a video that mocked and humiliated the officer not the most adult move but the cop is still lying dragging it out even more, its off the hook crazy. But the Milwaukee county DA’s office lets murders gop uncharged but was the whole departments time over a retarded youtube video, its shocking but not surprising I guess.

Leave a Comment