Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Darryl Allen FLYNN, Defendant–Appellant.†
¶1 Darryl Allen Flynn, pro se, appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Flynn argues that his trial lawyer ineffectively represented him by failing to object to jury instructions that: (1) did not inform the jury of the State’s burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt for first-degree and second-degree reckless homicide; (2) did not inform the jury that, with regard to self-defense, a belief could be reasonable, even though it is mistaken; (3) did not properly inform the jury to consider the law of self-defense of others with each offense; and (4) did not inform the jury that Flynn had a right to protect his children. Flynn further argues we should exercise our discretionary power to grant him a new trial in the interests of justice under Wis. Stat. § 752.35 (2015-16).1 We affirm.
¶2 The circuit court’s written decision properly analyzes and disposes of Flynn’s argument that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Therefore, we affirm as to that issue for the reasons explained in the circuit court’s decision, which is attached. See Wis. Ct. App. IOP VI. (5)(a) (Nov. 30, 2009) (“When the trial court’s decision was based upon a written opinion ․ the panel may ․ make reference thereto, and affirm on the basis of that opinion.”).
¶3 Flynn also argues that we should exercise our discretionary power to grant him a new trial under Wis. Stat. § 752.35. That statute authorizes us to reverse a judgment and order a new trial “if it appears from the record that the real controversy has not been fully tried, or that it is probable that justice has for any reason miscarried.” Id. Flynn contends that there are inherent due process violations in this case because the jury was not properly instructed. Flynn has not persuaded us that the alleged errors to which he points warrant a new trial.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
Attachment
FOOTNOTES
1. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2015-16 version unless otherwise noted.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Appeal No. 2017AP935
Decided: May 08, 2018
Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)