Federal Appeal 9

---

8: THE ABRIDGEMENT OF A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THIS STATE OR BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF TI-IL UNITED STATES,
INCLUDING A RIGHT THAT WAS NOT RECOGNIZED AS
EXISITLNG AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL IF THE CONSTITUION
REQUIRED RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF THAT RIGHT.


The accomplice theory and the ruling made by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court as to the delay in a defendant’s filing with the state supreme court when it was not the fault of the defendant but the appeal court were both rulings made after Pease’s appeals and Pease believes that they apply to his case.
Todd Crawford was an accomplice not a forced participant as he claims. At post conviction the District attorney testified that he was not aware that Todd Crawford had pummeled Mike Fitzgibbons at the apartment. There were statements were made prior to trial that state that Todd Crawford participated in the beating of Mike Fitzgibbons.
In the police reports there were statements that state, Todd Crawford went around bragging that he killed Mike Fitzgibbons. The District Attorney must have read the police reports, yet at Mark Price’s (co-defendant) post conviction hearing District Attorney testified that he didn’t know there were statements that say Crawford killed Fitzgibbons.
Joey Pease testified at Mark Price’s post conviction hearing that the first time he met with Detective Forseth he told him that Todd Crawford was the shooter. Because of the various testimonies given by the witnesses about Todd Crawford’s participation, the accomplice theory should have been given to the jury, in jury instructions. The Judge denied this motion.

And the denial by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to look at Pease’s appeal, because it was late being filed. It was late because the appeal court did not notify Pease or his attorney when the appeal court made their decision. This was also discussed in issue 4, the right to be represented by competent appellate counsel. 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 Wisconsin Supreme Court, it was the appellate court’s 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.