Background
A jury convicted Johnathan A. Rose of multiple child-sex-crime counts involving his daughter, referred to by the court as Cindy. The circuit court later dismissed two convictions—counts three and four—for insufficient evidence, but denied Rose’s remaining postconviction claims after a Machner hearing.
Rose, proceeding pro se on appeal, asserted numerous prosecutorial-misconduct and ineffective-assistance claims. The court held that most were forfeited because they were not raised in the circuit court. It considered five preserved ineffective-assistance allegations and Rose’s challenge to the evidence supporting his child-enticement conviction.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and postconviction order. It held that Rose did not establish deficient performance by trial counsel concerning a recorded phone call, impeachment with text messages, the decision not to retain a medical expert, or counsel’s failure to object to two portions of the State’s closing argument.
The court concluded that counsel’s choices regarding the texts, medical evidence, and objections were reasonable strategic decisions. It also held that the prosecutor’s challenged statements did not constitute improper name-calling or vouching. Finally, viewing the evidence in the State’s favor, the court found sufficient evidence that Rose caused Cindy to go to the partitioned office area of the basement for sexual contact, supporting the child-enticement conviction.
Key Takeaways
- Claims not preserved in the circuit court were forfeited on appeal.
- Reasonable trial strategy does not establish deficient performance under the ineffective-assistance standard.
- Cindy’s testimony that Rose “had” her sit on his lap in the basement office supported a reasonable inference of child enticement.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the preservation requirement in criminal appeals and the deference appellate courts give to counsel’s strategic choices. It also illustrates the highly deferential standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a jury verdict.