|
By practicing law in Wisconsin at a time
when his license to practice law in
Wisconsin was suspended, Amann violated SCR
31.10(1), which states, “A lawyer shall not
engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin
while his or her state bar membership is
suspended under this rule” and SCR 22.26(2),
which states, “An attorney whose license to
practice law is suspended or revoked or who
is suspended from the practice of law may
not engage in this state in the practice of
law or in any law work activity customarily
done by law students, law clerks, or other
paralegal personnel, except that the
attorney may engage in law related work in
this state for a commercial employer itself
not engaged in the practice of law.”
Violations of SCR 31.10(1) and SCR 22.26(2)
are enforced under the Rules of Professional
Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(f), which states, “It
is professional misconduct for a lawyer to…
violate a statute, supreme court rule,
supreme court order or supreme court
decision regulating the conduct of lawyers.”
On or about December 1, 2014, the Respondent
T. Gregory Amann was appointed to represent
a man in four Sawyer County Circuit Court
criminal cases. In the first case, the
client was charged with one count of
burglary and ten counts of theft of moveable
property. In the second case, the client was
charged with one count of felony escape-
criminal arrest, and two counts of felony
bail jumping. In the third case, the client
was charged with one count of felony bail
jumping. In the fourth case, the client was
charged with OWI 4th within 5 years,
operating with PAC 4th in 5 years,
misdemeanor possession of THC, resisting or
obstructing an officer, and felony bail
jumping.
The client had been convicted in June, 2013,
of one felony count of violating WIS. STAT.
§943.30(1) Threats to Injure/Accuse of
Crime, for which he was sentenced to three
years confinement and three years extended
supervision (consecutive to a jail term
imposed in another matter), stayed, and
three years probation, with conditions that
included absolute sobriety.
On April 21, 2014, the client was arrested
for the conduct leading to the charges at
issue in the fourth case, resulting in the
revocation of his probation stemming from
his 2013 conviction. On April 22, 2014, in
the fourth case, the court imposed a $15,000
cash bond, which the client was unable to
post, causing him to remain in custody. The
$15,000 cash bond was imposed only in the
fourth case.
On January 21, 2016, pursuant to a plea
agreement: in the first case, the client
pled no contest to one count of burglary,
and the ten counts of theft of moveable
property were dismissed and read in; in the
second case, pled no contest to felony bail
jumping, and the remaining counts were
dismissed but read in; in the third case,
the single count of felony bail jumping was
dismissed but read in; and in the fourth
case, the client pled no contest to OWI 4th
within 5 years, and the remaining counts
were dismissed but read in. Pursuant to the
plea agreement, the client’s sentence in the
four cases was to run concurrent to the
prison sentence he was serving for his 2013
conviction.
The client accepted the plea deal based on
Amann’s advice that, while the client would
not receive any sentence credit for the
first case, the sentence would begin to run
on the date the cash bond was imposed, April
22, 2014, rather than the date of
sentencing. Amann gave the client that
advice because Amann mistakenly believed
that the $15,000 cash bond applied to all
four cases, and not to the fourth case
alone.
On April 27, 2016, the client was sentenced
in the three cases that resulted in
convictions. In the first case, the court
sentenced the client to five years initial
confinement followed by five years of
extended supervision, concurrent with the
sentence imposed in the 2013 conviction. The
parties stipulated that the client was not
entitled to any sentence credit in the first
case. The client still believed, based on
Amann’s inaccurate advice, that his sentence
in the first case would begin to run on
April 22, 2014, not April 27, 2016.
In September, 2016, the client learned
during a review of his placement that his
sentence in the first case ran from April
27, 2016, the date of sentencing, rather
than April 22, 2014. Between September,
2016, and February 12, 2017, the client
attempted to contact Amann numerous times by
telephone and mail, and by email through St.
Germaine’s mother, to request Amann’s
assistance in resolving what the client
perceived to be an error in sentence credits
or how his sentence was calculated. Amann
sent the man a letter dated November 28,
2016, in which Amann wrote, “I looked
through your files again and I believe that
I understand the problem. I will look at the
Court files the next time that I am in
Hayward and will obtain copies of the Court
documents including the plea forms. I
probably will also need to order transcripts
of both those hearings. I will follow up
with you once I do that.” Amann did not
order any transcripts. Amann also failed to
review the four cases sufficiently to
realize that he had provided the client
inaccurate information based on Amann’s
mistaken belief that the bond applied to all
four cases. Between November 28, 2016 and
January 24, 2017, Amann did not take any
action to advance the client’s interests.
On January 28, 2017, Amann sent the client a
letter in which he stated, “I looked at the
Court files...For some reason the
attachments to the plea waiver and
questionnaire were not in the file…I will
try to determine what happened to those –
they may be important to address the
sentencing credit issue. At this point…I am
looking at filing a motion to have [the
court] deal with the sentence and credit
issues. If that is unsuccessful, the case
will be transferred to the public defender
appellate office in Madison and a staff or
appointed lawyer will take the case from
there. If my performance or advice was
insufficient they will be able to assert an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim and
the problem will be addressed that way.”
On February 12, 2017, the client sent a
grievance to OLR regarding Amann’s failure
to take action to correct what the client
still believed was an improper credit or
computation of his sentence. On February 21,
2017, OLR Intake Staff contacted Amann by
telephone to discuss the client’s grievance.
During that call, Amann asserted to OLR that
Amann was “still working on” the client’s
case, and was aware of the client’s
concerns. On February 22, 2017, Amann sent
the client a letter promising to meet with
the client by the middle of March, 2017, and
asserting that he was attempting to meet
with the prosecutor to see if he would “work
with” Amann and the client to “resolve the
problem in a shorter time frame than Court
proceedings will require.” Amann still had
not reviewed the four cases sufficiently to
determine that he had provided the client
inaccurate advice regarding when the
sentence would begin to run.
On or about April 3, 2017, Amann realized
that he had been mistaken in his belief that
the bond applied to all four cases. In an
email to OLR, Amann asserted that he
intended to “have this addressed by
appellate counsel.” Amann asserted, “I
suspect that the appellate intake office
will require me to obtain an extension to
file the intent to seek postconviction
relief.”
Between April 3 and June 23, 2017, Amann did
not file a motion to extend time for the
client to file a notice of intent to seek
postconviction relief, take any other action
to advance the client’s interests, or
contact the State Public Defender’s office
to discuss the client’s case or seek their
advice or guidance.
By letter dated May 31, 2017, OLR notified
Amann of the investigation of the client’s
grievance, and requested certain information
from Amann, including that Amann identify
what actions he had taken on behalf of the
client since April 3, 2017. Amann’s response
was due by June 23, 2017. By letter dated
June 23, 2017, Amann asserted again that he
had determined that the “best option” for
the client was for Amann to “file the motion
with the Court of Appeals to extend the time
in which to file notice of intent to seek
postconviction relief.” Amann promised to
file the motion by June 26, 2017.
On June 28, 2017, Amann filed the client’s
motion to extend the time in which to file
notice of intent to seek postconviction
relief, which the Court of Appeals granted.
The client was assigned successor counsel to
pursue his appeal.
|
|
![[Image of Lady Justice]](images/header_1.gif)
![[Image of columns]](images/header_3.jpg)