Appeal No.
01-3155-CR
Cir. Ct. No. 00-CF-1

STATE OF WISCONSIN
IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT III



State of Wisconsin,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

Randy A. Schill,

Defendant-Appellant.




APPEAL from judgments

When defense counsel cross-examined Debra, he asked if she knew whether "some foreign substance [was] found in your bloodstream?" The prosecutor objected on hearsay grounds and the court sustained the objection. Next, defense counsel inquired: "Is there anything that has come to your attention to lead you to believe that there was some substance

Schill"s attorney argued at closing that Debra had falsely accused his client because she was hoping to reconcile with her estranged husband and, when she lunched with him two days after her date with Schill, she needed to provide an innocent explanation for the hickeys on her neck.

¶15. Defense counsel emphasized the State"s burden of

¶19. Counsel further explained that when the court sustained a hearsay objection to his question of DebraÉs knowledge of the urinalysis, he decided not to pursue the introduction of the lab report. He testified that his theory of defense had little or nothing to do with the question whether Debra had been drugged. Counsel testified:

The theory of the

¶23. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of fact and law. Pitsch, 124 Wis.2d at 633-34. We do not reverse the trial courtÉs factual findings unless clearly erroneous. Id. Whether counselÉs conduct was deficient and prejudicial present questions of law that we review independently of the trial court. Id.

¶24. We conclude that

¶28. Under the Strickland test for deficient performance, professionally competent assistance encompasses a "wide range" of behaviors, and "[a] fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counselÉs challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct