State v. Taylor
| Citation | 396 Wis.2d 702,958 N.W.2d 160 (Table),2021 WI App 20 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 2019AP251 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Matthew Ray TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
¶1 Matthew Ray Taylor appeals the circuit court order denying his second motion for postconviction relief. Taylor argues that he is entitled to a new trial, or at minimum, an evidentiary hearing, based on newly-discovered evidence from four people who contend he could not have committed the crime for which he was convicted. In the alternative, Taylor argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. We reject Taylor's arguments and affirm the circuit court.
¶2 This is Taylor's second appeal for postconviction relief, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2017-18).1 In December 2013, Taylor was convicted at trial of first-degree reckless homicide and first-degree reckless injury, both by use of a dangerous weapon, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The underlying criminal complaint alleged that Taylor approached a vehicle on North 15th Street in Milwaukee containing three people in the early morning hours of July 11, 2013, and he attempted to conduct a drug transaction. However, when problems with the drug transaction developed, Taylor shot into the car, killing one person and injuring a second. At least one of the occupants of the car fired back.
¶3 At about the same time, the police responded to a request for help at a house on North 15th Street, about a block south of the shooting. The police found Taylor inside the house with a gunshot wound to his leg; he was subsequently arrested. The police followed a blood trail that led from the site of the shooting to a garbage container, where the police found the firearm used to shoot into the car, and then the blood trail led to the house where Taylor was found. Inside the house where Taylor was found, the police recovered a black hoodie2 with fresh blood on it.
¶4 The two eyewitnesses to the shooting—the injured victim and a person in the backseat of the car—identified Taylor in a police photo array as the person who shot into the car. At trial, they each testified that Taylor was the shooter and the shooter was wearing the black hoodie during the shooting. Taylor was convicted of all counts and sentenced to a global bifurcated sentence of thirty years of initial confinement and twenty-five years of extended supervision.3
¶5 The circuit court denied, without a hearing, Taylor's first postconviction motion based on newly-discovered evidence. Taylor appealed to this court, which affirmed the circuit court. See State v. Taylor (Taylor I ), No. 2016AP682-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App June 27, 2017).
¶6 Taylor now files a second postconviction motion, arguing different newly-discovered evidence undermines the verdict, compelling either an evidentiary hearing or a new trial. In the alternative, Taylor argues that trial counsel was ineffective, which entitles him to a Machner4 hearing. Taylor proffers affidavits from four individuals as new evidence. We summarize the information offered as newly-discovered evidence below.
¶7 The first affiant, Ericka Johnson, stated that she was awakened when she heard Taylor calling for help and she found Taylor bleeding from a gunshot to his leg in the living room. She grabbed clothing out of a closet in the back of the house to stop the bleeding; the clothing she grabbed included the black hoodie. She recognized the black hoodie as one that had been in the house for over a year at the time of the shooting; she never saw Taylor wear it. She was confident that Taylor was wearing all white on the night of the shooting. Taylor's trial counsel did not contact her at any time before his conviction and sentencing; further, she never told Taylor or anyone else that she was willing to testify on his behalf.
¶8 The second affiant, Lee Bellamy, is Taylor's cousin. He claimed he spent the day before the shooting with Taylor at their grandmother's house until Taylor left to visit friends; further, Taylor was wearing all white and he was not wearing the black hoodie. Bellamy knew that Taylor was afraid of guns and did not have a gun on the day of the shooting. Taylor's trial counsel did not contact him at any time before Taylor's conviction and sentencing; further, Bellamy never told Taylor or anyone else that he was willing to testify on his behalf.
¶9 The third affiant, Darrick Travis, claimed that he was with Taylor on the night of the shooting and that Taylor was wearing all white, not the black hoodie. Travis claimed that after Taylor was taken away by ambulance, Terry Singleton said he was the shooter and that he believed his prints would be found on the gun used in the shooting. Travis stated that Singleton also told him that he thought he might get away with the shooting, after he was not identified in a police lineup and released. Approximately a year later, Travis was incarcerated with Singleton and he claimed that Singleton said he felt badly that Taylor had been convicted even though he was innocent, but Singleton had no plans to turn himself in and risk additional prison time. Travis stated that he had not informed authorities about these statements until now out of concern for his own safety, but he wanted to tell the truth. Taylor's trial counsel did not contact Travis prior to Taylor's conviction; however, he was contacted by Taylor's appellate counsel and was asked to testify in any further proceedings.
¶10 The fourth affiant, Terry Singleton, stated that he witnessed the shooting from a close distance and when the shots were fired, he could see Taylor at a distance walking down the street, not pointing or holding a gun. Additionally, he recalled Taylor wearing all white, not the black hoodie. Taylor's trial counsel did not contact Singleton prior to Taylor's conviction and sentencing and Singleton did not tell Taylor he was willing to testify on his behalf.5 Singleton stated that he was not coerced to make this affidavit and he was aware that he could consult with an attorney and that his testimony may subject him to criminal prosecution and punishment.
¶11 The circuit court denied Taylor's second postconviction motion without a hearing. The circuit court ruled that none of the affidavits constituted newly-discovered evidence under the law. It ruled that Johnson, Bellamy, and Travis's affidavits were inadequate to show that the evidence was not known to Taylor at the time of trial, and it was not reasonably probable that the new evidence would undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. The circuit court found Singleton's account "utterly insufficient" to satisfy the newly-discovered evidence standard. It discounted the value of Singleton's testimony, quoting from our previous decision denying relief to Taylor.
¶12 This appeal follows. Additional facts will be included as necessary.
¶13 A circuit court may deny a postconviction motion without a hearing where the motion on its face fails to allege sufficient facts, only makes conclusory allegations, or the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief. State v. Sholar , 2018 WI 53, ¶50, 381 Wis. 2d 560, 912 N.W.2d 89 (citations omitted). "Whether a defendant's postconviction motion alleges sufficient facts to entitle the defendant" to an evidentiary hearing is a mixed question of fact and law. State v. Allen , 2004 WI 106, ¶9, 274 Wis. 2d 568, 682 N.W.2d 433. If the motion alleges facts that would entitle the defendant to relief, "the circuit court has no discretion and must hold an evidentiary hearing." State v. Bentley , 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996). "Whether a motion alleges facts which, if true, would entitle a defendant to relief is a question of law that we review de novo. " Id. (emphasis added).
¶14 The postconviction motion must specifically allege within its four corners material facts answering the questions who, what, when, where, why, and how the movant would successfully prove at an evidentiary hearing that he or she is entitled to a new trial: "the five ‘w's’ and one ‘h’ " test. Allen , 274 Wis. 2d 568, ¶23 ; see also State v. Love , 2005 WI 116, ¶27, 284 Wis. 2d 111, 700 N.W.2d 62. We review the circuit court's decision to deny an evidentiary hearing under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. See Allen , 274 Wis. 2d 568, ¶9. "A circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard to newly-discovered evidence." State v. McAlister , 2018 WI 34, ¶26, 380 Wis. 2d 684, 911 N.W.2d 77, reconsideration denied , 2018 WI 90, 383 Wis. 2d 146, 918 N.W.2d 77, and cert. denied , 139 S. Ct. 824 (2019) (citation omitted).
¶15 Taylor argues that the four affidavits he presents in his second postconviction motion are newly-discovered evidence that compel, at minimum, an evidentiary hearing, or directly, a new trial. He asserts that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied his motion. In the alternative, he argues that if this court considers this evidence to have been available at his trial, then his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not investigating and presenting this evidence, and the case should be remanded for a Machner hearing on that claim.
¶16 Taylor argues that the State's case rested so strongly on the identification of the shooter as the person in the black hoodie that the outcome of the trial is undermined by his proffered affidavits from four people who claim, among other things, that Taylor was not wearing the black hoodie that night. Additionally, he argues that Travis states in his affidavit that Singleton confessed on multiple occasions that he committed the shooting and that Taylor did...
To continue reading
Request your trial