State v. Fencl

While I have misgivings and doubts about the majority’s evaluation of the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in this case and of the prejudicial effect of the state’s references to the defendant’s silence,1 I concur in the result *244the majority reaches and write separately to express my reservations about the majority’s analysis of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

The majority opinion is the latest in a series of opinions of this court that depart from the standard we established in State v. Harper, 57 Wis. 2d 543, 557, 205 N.W.2d 1 (1973), to test ineffective assistance of…