State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Andres Romero-Georgana, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner

Summary

The court affirmed denial of Romero-Georgana's third postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. It held that his claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel was procedurally barred because he did not explain why the claim was omitted from his second postconviction motion, and, independently, that his motion lacked sufficient material facts showing deficient performance. The court adopted a "clearly stronger" comparison for claims that postconviction counsel omitted while pursuing other claims, subject to consideration of the defendant's stated objectives or preferences. Justice Bradley, joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson, dissented, concluding that the statutory plea-withdrawal remedy applied without the additional postconviction barriers.