State v. Bland

1 Jeffrey Bland appeals, pro se, from an order denying his WIS. STAT. 974.06(2003-04) motion. He repeats on appeal the twelve claims of error, which were summarily rejected by the trial court: the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion (1) in allowing Bland to be tried together with his co-defendant; (2) in allowing hearsay testimony; (3) in allowing the State to vouch for the credibility of a witness; (4) in handling co-defendants counsels closing argument comment regarding Bland not testifying; (5) in failing to give a curative instruction after co-defendants counsels comment; (6) in allowing the jury panel to remain after dismissing Blands parole agent as a potential juror; (7) by allowing co-defendants counsel to make closing argument not based in evidence; his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (8) failing to seek severance of his case from his co-defendants; (9) failing to impeach a witness; (10) failing to object to the State vouching for the credibility of a witness; (11) failing to object when co-defendants counsel stated during closing argument that Bland did not testify; and (12) failing to object to use of allegedly non-existent evidence. Bland also argues that his post-conviction counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise these twelve claims of error. Because we reject all of Blands claims, we affirm the order.