State v. Chambers
| Decision Date | 23 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2019AP411-CR,2019AP411-CR |
| Citation | 955 N.W.2d 144,2021 WI 13,395 Wis.2d 770 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Decarlos K. CHAMBERS, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Mark S. Rosen and Rosen and Holzman, LTD., Waukesha. There was an oral argument by Mark S. Rosen.
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by Scott E. Rosenow, assistant attorney general; with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Scott E. Rosenow.
¶1 This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, State v. Chambers, No. 2019AP411-CR, unpublished slip op., 2020 WL 2844239 (Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 2, 2020), affirming the Milwaukee County circuit court's1 judgment of conviction and order denying Decarlos Chambers' postconviction motion. The State charged Chambers with first-degree reckless homicide with a dangerous weapon, as a party to a crime, and possession of a firearm by a person adjudicated delinquent for a felony. After a trial, a jury found Chambers guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree reckless homicide with a dangerous weapon, as a party to a crime, and possession of a firearm by a person adjudicated delinquent for a felony.
¶2 After Chambers' conviction, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L.Ed.2d 821 (2018). In McCoy, the Court held that trial counsel cannot concede a client's guilt when a client expressly asserts that the objective of the defense is to maintain innocence and the client objects to the concession of guilt.
Id. at 1509. The Court also held that this error is structural, and one for which a new trial is required. Id. at 1512.
¶3 Seeking to apply McCoy to his case, Chambers filed a postconviction motion challenging his judgment of conviction on the grounds that his trial counsel conceded his guilt during closing arguments contrary to his objective of maintaining absolute innocence and over his objections. The circuit court disagreed with Chambers and held that Chambers' trial counsel did not concede his guilt during closing argument.
The court of appeals agreed, holding that Chambers' counsel did not violate the principles set forth in McCoy. We also agree.
¶4 Because we conclude that Chambers' counsel never conceded his guilt during closing arguments, Chambers' McCoy claim fails. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶5 On January 17, 2017, the State filed a criminal complaint against Chambers. The complaint alleged two counts. The first count alleged that Chambers committed first-degree reckless homicide with a dangerous weapon, as a party to a crime, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.02(1) and 939.05 (2017-18).2 Specifically, the complaint alleged that Chambers "as a party to a crime, did recklessly cause the death of Kyle Tymone Weary, another human being, under circumstances which showed utter disregard for human life" "while using a dangerous weapon." The second count, possession of a firearm by an adjudicated delinquent, alleged that Chambers possessed a firearm despite being adjudicated delinquent of an act that would constitute a felony, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m)(bm). That same day, Chambers was arrested and made his initial appearance before the circuit court.
¶6 On January 25, 2017, the circuit court held a preliminary hearing, found probable cause for the charges, and bound Chambers over for trial. On February 7, 2017, the court arraigned Chambers. The State filed its Information, charging Chambers with the two counts contained in the criminal complaint. Chambers pled not guilty to both counts.
¶7 On August 14, 2017, Chambers' jury trial commenced. After both sides rested their arguments, the circuit court began a discussion with the parties regarding jury instructions. The State requested that the court instruct the jury as to the lesser-included offense of second-degree reckless homicide. Chambers did not object. Chambers' trial counsel requested time to discuss the proposed jury instructions with Chambers prior to the court finalizing those instructions. After a discussion off the record, Chambers' trial counsel confirmed that Chambers agreed with the proposed jury instructions, including the instruction for second-degree reckless homicide.
¶8 The following day, August 16, 2017, the circuit court instructed the jury and both parties made their closing arguments. As part of her closing argument, Chambers' trial counsel stated that because "whoever shot [Kyle Weary]" did so "at night, in the dark, in the rain, a distance away," the jury "should consider" second-degree reckless homicide. She concluded the closing argument by insisting that because there was reasonable doubt based on the evidence, the jury "should find [Chambers] not guilty."
¶9 The court then submitted the case to the jury, which began its deliberation. Later that afternoon, the jury returned its verdict. The jury found Chambers guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree reckless homicide with a dangerous weapon, as a party to a crime, for count one and guilty of possession of a firearm by a person adjudicated delinquent for a felony for count two. The court sentenced Chambers to ten years of initial confinement and eight years of extended supervision on count one and two years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision on count two, with the sentences to run consecutively.
¶10 On December 12, 2018, Chambers filed his motion seeking postconviction relief. In this motion, he claimed that his trial counsel conceded his guilt against his expressed intent to maintain absolute innocence, contrary to the new rule the United States Supreme Court announced in McCoy, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L.Ed.2d 821 (2018). Specifically, Chambers argued that when his trial counsel stated that the jury "should consider" second-degree reckless homicide, it was a concession of his guilt on the lesser-included offense. Because this error is structural, Chambers asserted that he must receive a new trial to remedy the error. The circuit court denied Chambers' postconviction motion, holding that Chambers' trial counsel never conceded his guilt at trial.
¶11 Chambers appealed both his judgment of conviction and the circuit court's order denying his postconviction motion. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court. Chambers, No. 2019AP411-CR, ¶5. The court of appeals held that, "[t]rial counsel's closing argument, read in its entirety, shows that trial counsel did not concede Chambers' guilt." Id. ¶12 On June 30, 2020, Chambers petitioned this court for review. We granted review.
¶13 Chambers alleges that his trial counsel conceded his guilt in closing argument, violating his right to "the Assistance of Counsel for his defence," which the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees. "This court independently reviews whether deprivation of a constitutional right has occurred." State v. Jones, 2010 WI 72, ¶23, 326 Wis. 2d 380, 797 N.W.2d 378.
¶14 We begin our analysis by discussing the Sixth Amendment and McCoy. We then turn to the merits of Chambers' McCoy claim in this case.3
¶15 The Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." This right "speaks of the ‘assistance’ of counsel, and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant."
McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1508 (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 820, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) ). While counsel "is still an assistant," "[t]rial management is the lawyer's province." Id. This means that "[c]ounsel provides his or her assistance by making decisions such as ‘what arguments to pursue, what evidentiary objections to raise, and what agreements to conclude regarding the admission of evidence.’ " Id. (quoting Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242, 248, 128 S.Ct. 1765, 170 L.Ed.2d 616 (2008) ). While counsel makes the decisions regarding trial management, some decisions "are reserved for the client—notably, whether to plead guilty, waive the right to a jury trial, testify in one's own behalf, and forgo appeal." Id.
¶16 The United States Supreme Court has previously held that "[w]hen counsel informs the defendant of the strategy counsel believes to be in the defendant's best interest and the defendant is unresponsive, counsel's strategic choice is not impeded by any blanket rule demanding the defendant's explicit consent." Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 192, 125 S.Ct. 551, 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004). In Nixon, Nixon's counsel repeatedly explained that the litigation strategy he was pursuing was to concede guilt and focus on the penalty phase of the trial—attempting to avoid a death penalty sentence. Id. at 181, 125 S.Ct. 551. "Nixon was generally unresponsive" to these explanations and neither consented nor objected to his counsel's strategy. Id. Counsel followed his proposed litigation strategy, but Nixon was still found guilty and sentenced to death. Id. at 184, 125 S.Ct. 551. Nixon appealed, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance because his counsel never obtained his express consent to a strategy of conceding guilt. Id. at 186-87, 125 S.Ct. 551. The United States Supreme Court disagreed and concluded that when the defendant "neither consents nor objects" to a strategy of conceding guilt, such decisions are within the scope of counsel's strategic choices.4 Id. at 178, 125 S.Ct. 551.
¶17 The United States Supreme Court recently distinguished its Nixon holding. McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1512....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spencer
...70, ¶18, 349 Wis. 2d 327, 833 N.W.2d 126 (citing State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶19, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785 ); see also State v. Chambers, 2021 WI 13, ¶13, 395 Wis. 2d 770, 955 N.W.2d 144 ("This court independently reviews whether deprivation of a constitutional right has occurred."......
-
Ritter v. Farrow
... ... 17 Meanwhile, the Farrows were taking steps to officially register the Bibs Resort marks with the State. In November 2008, unbeknownst to any of the other unit owners, the Farrows filed an "Application for Registration of Marks" with the Office of the ... ...
-
Chambers v. Fuchs
...such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Chambers' conviction on February 23, 2021. State v. Chambers 955 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 2021). Chambers then had 90 days to seek review in the United States Supreme Court by petitioning for a writ of certiorari. U.S. Supr......
-
State v. Watson
...not concede guilt by discussing second-degree murder as an alternative to the top charge of first-degree murder. Cf. State v. Chambers, 955 N.W.2d 144, 149-50 (Wis. 2021) (concluding that guiding jury toward lesser included offense did not constitute a concession of guilt). Counsel's acknow......