Atty. George A. Limbeck, 45, an experienced attorney in Sheboygan who works exclusively in the area of criminal law, represented a client who was simultaneously charged in two counties with the sexual assault of his three stepchildren. Limbeck advised his client that he potentially faced a mandatory life sentence under sec. 939.62, Stats., the “two strikes” law that applies to child sex offenses, if convicted in both counties. Limbeck’s advice was in error because the clear language of the statute applies only in cases where a defendant has already been convicted of a serious child sex offense and thereafter commits a similar crime. The client had no prior conviction.

Limbeck advised the client that the only way to avoid the potential application of a mandatory life sentence was to enter a plea in the county that was actively pursuing the charges, and have the second county drop or consolidate its charges. The client reluctantly agreed to enter a plea in the first county. It was only on the day that the client made this decision and Limbeck scheduled a plea hearing date that Limbeck wrote to the second county to ask what they were “looking for in terms of any plea agreement” and to ask if they would be willing to consolidate or drop their charge if a plea was entered in the first county. Before he received any response to this inquiry, the plea hearing was held in the first county and the client entered a guilty plea. It was several days later that Limbeck wrote to his client to state that the second county had agreed to their proposal, and that the two-strikes law would therefore not apply.

Two weeks before the sentencing hearing, Limbeck received a pre-sentence report that was very unfavorable to his client. Limbeck did not meet with his client until five days before the sentencing hearing and then advised the client that it would be helpful to obtain other evaluations that might counter the pre-sentence report and to arrange for some favorable witnesses. Limbeck suggested that the client allow Limbeck to withdraw from the representation and ask for a continuance, thereby allowing the client to seek appointment of a public defender who might be able to obtain the evaluations at no cost to the client. The following day the client agreed to support Limbeck’s petition to withdraw, and on the Friday before the Monday sentencing hearing, Limbeck faxed to the court a motion to withdraw as well as a motion to adjourn Monday’s sentencing hearing. Limbeck’s cover letter told the court that he was taking the liberty of noticing the motion for the same time as the sentencing hearing and stated that, “In case both motions are denied, I will endeavor to be as prepared as possible.”

The court denied both of Limbeck’s motions and went forward with sentencing. Limbeck had prepared no witnesses to testify on his client’s behalf, and none of the approximately ten letters that had been sent to Limbeck in support of the client were presented to the court, although Limbeck asserts that he did not present at least some of those letters for tactical reasons. The client was sentenced to 24 years confinement and 12 years extended supervision on the charges.