STATE v. JORDAN, 2005 WI App 176

285 Wis.2d 806, 701 N.W.2d 652

State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph J. Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I.
No. 2004AP2616-CR.
Opinion Filed: June 28, 2005.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: JOHN A. FRANKE, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.

¶ 1 PER CURIAM.

Joseph J. Jordan, pro se, seeks relief from a judgment entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of one count of first-degree reckless homicide, three counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, see WIS. STAT. §§ 940.02(1), 941.30(1), 941.29(2) (2001-02), and from orders denying his motions for postconviction relief and for reconsideration.[1] Jordan claims that: (1) the trial court used the wrong standard when it found that he was not competent to represent himself at the trial; (2) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer did not object when the prosecutor allegedly vouched for police detectives’ credibility during closing arguments; and (3) the trial court did not ask about an alleged conflict of interest because Jordan’s trial lawyer was paid by the taxpayers without Jordan’s knowledge or consent. The trial court addressed these issues in its cogent written decision and order denying Jordan’s motion for postconviction relief. It applied the proper legal standards to the relevant facts and reached the correct result. Therefore, we incorporate and attach the trial court’s decision, and affirm. See WIS. CT. APP. IOP VI(5)(a) (Oct. 14, 2003) (court of appeals may adopt trial court’s opinion).

By the Court. — Judgment and orders affirmed.

[1] Jordan’s notice of appeal references the trial court’s “decision and order” denying his motion for postconviction relief. After the trial court issued the order denying Jordan’s motion for postconviction relief, it issued the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We nonetheless have jurisdiction to consider all matters Jordan raises on appeal. See WIS. STAT. §808.04(8) (if judgment or order entered after notice of appeal filed, notice of appeal shall be treated as entered after judgment or order), WIS. STAT. RULE 809.10(4) (appeal from final judgment or order brings before court all prior nonfinal judgments, orders, and rulings adverse to appellant and favorable to respondent not previously appealed and ruled on).

jdjungle