Background
Darius T. Robinson was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of first-degree sexual assault with a dangerous weapon, attempted second-degree sexual assault, and three counts of armed robbery. The State alleged that Robinson sexually assaulted three women he met through an online escort service and forcibly took each woman’s phone. Robinson testified that the sexual encounters were consensual and denied taking the phones by force.
The Milwaukee County Circuit Court imposed a total sentence of 190 years, including 125 years of initial confinement. Representing himself in postconviction proceedings, Robinson alleged an unlawful pre-probable-cause detention, an impermissibly suggestive live lineup and denial of counsel at that lineup, ineffective assistance, and sentencing errors. The postconviction court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and postconviction order. Robinson’s claims were forfeited because he had not raised them at trial, so the court considered them through his ineffective-assistance claims. It held that the record showed a court commissioner made a probable-cause finding within 48 hours of Robinson’s warrantless arrest, and that the commissioner’s prior search-warrant rulings did not establish a lack of neutrality.
The court also rejected the lineup challenge. Counsel was not deficient for failing to raise a right-to-counsel argument based on law that was unsettled during the 2019 and 2020 proceedings. The lineup was not shown to be unduly suggestive: the witnesses did not rely on Robinson’s hair in identifying him, and the record did not show they communicated about their identifications. The court further found counsel reasonably chose not to emphasize a brief domestic-violence reference, and Robinson failed to develop his photo-evidence and inaccurate-information claims or identify omitted mitigation that could have affected his sentence.
Key Takeaways
- A probable-cause determination made within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest satisfies Riverside even if a particular probable-cause form is unsigned.
- Prior judicial rulings in the same case, without more, do not establish that a judicial officer lacked neutrality.
- An ineffective-assistance claim based on omitted mitigation fails without identifying the evidence and showing a reasonable probability of a different sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that postconviction ineffective-assistance motions must allege concrete facts supporting both deficient performance and prejudice. Conclusory assertions and undeveloped challenges do not require an evidentiary hearing.
It also illustrates the court’s fact-specific approach to lineup suggestiveness, focusing on the identification features witnesses actually used and on whether the procedure allowed witnesses to influence one another.