300 Wis.2d 581, 730 N.W.2d 461
No. 2006AP000908.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
February 6, 2007.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: TIMOTHY G. DUGAN, Judge. Affirmed.
Before WEDEMEYER, P.J., CURLEY and KESSLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
¶ 1 William Norman Staples appeals pro se from an order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2003-04)[1]
postconviction motion. Staples contends that he was improperly charged with attempted first-degree murder because the charge does not exist. He also contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Staples’ contentions are incorrect and without merit, we affirm.
BACKGROUND ¶ 2 On December 16, 1975, Staples was charged with attempted first-degree murder. The charge stemmed from an incident in which Staples pointed a gun at Eddie Boyd and fired a bullet which struck Boyd in the face. Staples pled guilty and was convicted of one count of attempted first-degree murder.
¶ 3 On March 8, 2006, Staples filed a pro se
motion for expungement of his felony for attempted first-degree murder. The trial court denied the motion noting: “The defendant was properly charged under sections 940.01 and 939.32, Wis. Stats. His motion is frivolous.”
¶ 4 Staples now appeals from that order.
DISCUSSION ¶ 5 Staples claims he was improperly charged and that the charge of attempted first-degree murder does not exist in the state. Staples is simply wrong.
¶ 6 Staples’ reliance on State v. Briggs, 218 Wis. 2d 61, 579 N.W.2d 783 (Ct.App. 1998) is misplaced.Briggs addressed whether the state can charge attempted felony murder, not attempted first-degree murder.Id. at 65.
¶ 7 Based on the facts in this case, there was nothing improper with the State’s charge of attempted first-degree murder. Staples pointed a gun at Boyd and fired a bullet, which struck Boyd in the face. “The law presumes that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his own acts.”Gelhaar v. State, 41 Wis. 2d 230, 243, 163 N.W.2d 609
(1969) (citation omitted). Thus, the State had a sufficient basis to assert that Staples attempted to murder the victim in this case.
¶ 8 There was nothing improper with the State’s charge in this case, the court had proper jurisdiction to convict Staples, and he is not entitled to expungement. The trial court did not err in so ruling.
¶ 9 In addition, because the issue Staples raises is without merit, it logically follows that any claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the meritless issue must fail as well. Trial counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise a non-meritorious issue. SeeStrickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
By the Court. — Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.