|
|
Home Page
|
4: THE DENIAL OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COMPETENT ATTORNEY,IN APPELLATE MOTION. Pease's Appellate Counsel was Attorney Norma Briggs, she was insufficient in the fact that she did not raise any of the issues which had merit. The only issue she raised on appeal was ineffective assistance of counsel. The following issues should have been raised on appeal. Attorney Briggs failed to raise the following issues on appeal. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the court, and to have the court inform the jury, that defendant suffered from Bells Palsy, a disease that causes involuntary and severe facial spasms. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the court that the defendant was then taking a psychotropic medication for severe depression this affected his cognitive abilities and functions. Appellate Attorney was ineffective for not raising these issues on appeal. Appellate counsel had obtained an affidavit from Joey Pease where he states that Todd Crawford and himself had put LSD into the drinks of Richard Pease and Mark Price when they were out of the room. After the affidavit was submitted in the briefs on appeal, Joe Pease changed his mind, and said, He wasn't sure this was the night the put the LSD in Pease and Price's drinks. Someone in authority told him that he would be facing homicide charges along with Todd Crawford, if he didn't change his story must have advised Joe Pease. Joe Pease was very descriptive in his statement for something he claims later didn't happen. In an affidavit Joe Pease states on the night of the incident he showed Todd Crawford he had some LSD, but he did not want to use it then, so put it away. He went on to state. While Richie and Mark were in the bathroom, I took out two paper blotters of LSD and cut each in half. I put one half of one in my beer and the other half in Mark's beer. Todd reached over and put one half of the other in his beer and one half in Richie's. After this affidavit was typed up and the District Attorney read this, Joe Pease crosses this part off claiming, Not sure was that night. Well it had to be that night because at no other time was the scenario ever the same. Joe Pease was intimidated by the District Attorney. The District Attorney knew the LSD would be a defense for Richard Pease. Well this was the only time that Richard Pease, Joey Pease, Todd Crawford and Mark Price were all together at Joey Pease's apartment. At Mark Price's trial, Todd Crawford testified that the night of this incident was the first and only time he had ever met Mark Price. And Pease contends that why would Joe Pease claim that Todd Crawford along with himself drugged Richard Pease and Mark Price unless it was true! LSD is a very dangerous drug and, if taken unknowingly could have very harmful results. And Pease could not be held accountable for any actions if unknowingly under the influence of LSD. Appellate Counsel should have pursued this issue further instead of ignoring it. That appellate counsel should have raised the issue of the trial court allowing into evidence the threat letter. Pease's Defense Attorney Brian Mares had included a letter concerning this issue to Pease Appellate Attorney that this was an issue that should be raised on appeal. Appellate Counsel did not raise the issue of the threat letter on appeal. This was important considering Pease was not even convicted of this at the time. When the decision came down from the Court of Appeals District II, Pease's Attorney was not notified of the Decision. Pease's sister seen the decision in the newspaper, and notified Pease who in turn called his attorney. Attorney Briggs did call the Appellate Court and then they first mailed the decision. So the petition to file for review to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was not filed in the 30-day time limit. Attorney Briggs filed for an extension in which to file the petition in the Supreme Court but it was denied. Pease's Appellate Attorney should have pursued this issue further. Instead she just stopped working on the case. This was not Pease's fault that the petition was filed late with the WisconsinSupreme Court, it was the appellate courts fault because the decision was not mailed to the attorney. This was presented to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court,with this motion. The Court denied review of the case. According to a recent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on May 15, 1999, State ex rel Fuentes v. Court of Appeals District IV a similar situation happened in which the ruling was not mailed to the defendant in a timely matter. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals had to review the case again so it would be re-submitted to the State Supreme in the 30-day time limit. Appellate Attorney also failed to raise the admission of other acts evidence. Pease talked to his appellate attorney about adding this to the appeal because he thought it was an important issue. Considering all the evidence was proven false. The people who claimed this happened were charged with filing a false police report.
|