State v. John Anthony Jackson

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
March 31, 2026
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal Nos.
2025AP4 Cir. Ct. Nos. 2017CF3795
2018CF137
2025AP5
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

JOHN ANTHONY JACKSON,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEALS from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
MICHELLE A. HAVAS, Judge. Affirmed.

Before White, C.J., Donald, and Geenen, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

¶1 PER CURIAM. In this consolidated appeal, John Anthony Jackson,
pro se, appeals from the circuit court’s denial of his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2023-
Nos. 2025AP4
2025AP5

24)1 motion for postconviction relief. Jackson contends that trial, postconviction,
and appellate counsel were ineffective in various ways. For the reasons discussed
below, we reject Jackson’s arguments and affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Jackson was charged with seven different crimes relating to three
children—Angela, Melanie, and Greta—in two separate complaints.2 In
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Case No. 2017CF3795, the State charged
Jackson with five counts involving Angela: (1) child trafficking; (2) human
trafficking done by causing or threatening to cause bodily harm; (3) second-degree
sexual assault of a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years;
(4) soliciting a child for prostitution; and (5) physical abuse of a child intentionally
causing bodily harm. According to trial testimony, Angela was a fifteen-year-old
runaway when she met Jackson online and moved in with him. Jackson gave her
ecstasy and marijuana and they began a sexual relationship. Jackson told Angela
that other girls had worked for him as prostitutes, including Melanie, and pushed
her to do the same because he needed money.

¶3 Angela began working as a prostitute, giving Jackson most of her
earnings. Jackson posted ads on Backpage and other sites advertising Angela for
sex, took photos of her for the ads, had her walk the streets to pick up clients,
screened potential clients, drove her to prostitution dates, and had her apply to
dance at a club in order to find more clients. If Jackson felt Angela was not

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
2
We use pseudonyms to refer to the victims in this case. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86.

2
Nos. 2025AP4
2025AP5

making enough money for him, he would sometimes hit her, choke her, throw
things at her, push her, and bar her from the house until she got more money.
Angela witnessed Jackson attempt to recruit several of her friends to prostitute for
him, including Greta. Her relationship and prostitution activity with Jackson
occurred in 2016 and 2017.

¶4 In Milwaukee County Circuit Court Case No. 2018CF137, the State
charged Jackson with two counts of child trafficking. The first count alleged that
Jackson knowingly attempted to recruit Greta, a child, to perform a commercial
sex act. The second count alleged that Jackson knowingly transported Melanie, a
child, for the purpose of a commercial sex act. The circuit court joined this case
with the other case against Jackson, and the same jury heard both cases.

¶5 Greta testified that she was a fifteen-year-old runaway when she met
Jackson in November 2016. Greta was friends with Angela and stayed with her at
Jackson’s house for a few days. At Jackson’s house, Greta was given pills and
marijuana, and Jackson asked her to become part of his “team,” which she
understood to mean working as a prostitute. Greta declined and was picked up by
her mother.

¶6 Melanie testified that she was fourteen years old when she met
Jackson in the neighborhood where they both lived. They became friends and, in
July of 2012, when she was still fourteen and had run away from home, Jackson
let her use his computer to post a prostitution ad on Backpage and drove her to a
prostitution date. At the location where the date was supposed to take place, both
Melanie and Jackson were arrested in an undercover sting operation. At the time
of her arrest in 2012, Melanie denied that Jackson was her pimp. However,

3
Nos. 2025AP4
2025AP5

Melanie was reinterviewed in 2017 after detectives tied Melanie’s case to
Angela’s case because they both involved Jackson.

¶7 The jury found Jackson guilty of all counts as charged. In
postconviction proceedings under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.30, the circuit court
granted Jackson’s motion to dismiss the child trafficking count concerning
Melanie, but rejected his other claims. On appeal, this court affirmed the
convictions. See State v. Jackson, Nos. 2021AP804-CR and 2021AP805-CR,
unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 8, 2022).

¶8 In February 2024, Jackson, pro se, filed the current WIS. STAT.
§ 974.06 motion alleging that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
object to joinder or move to sever his cases for trial; (2) his postconviction counsel
was ineffective for not raising trial counsel’s ineffectiveness; and (3) the
admission of evidence related to the dismissed child trafficking count involving
Melanie prejudiced him as to the child trafficking counts involving Angela and
Greta, and his postconviction counsel therefore was ineffective for not moving for
a new trial on the child trafficking counts relating to Angela and Greta.

¶9 The circuit court denied Jackson’s WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion
without an evidentiary hearing. The court determined that joinder was appropriate
and that a motion to sever would have been denied if trial counsel made one,
therefore trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to joinder or move
to sever. As to Jackson’s claim that the inclusion of evidence related to the
dismissed count prejudiced him with respect to the other child trafficking counts,
the circuit court determined that it had previously decided this issue when it
addressed his prior postconviction motion. Therefore, it concluded that this claim
was barred by State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990, 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct.

4
Nos. 2025AP4
2025AP5

App. 1991) (“A matter once litigated may not be relitigated in a subsequent
postconviction proceeding no matter how artfully the defendant may rephrase the
issue.”).3

LEGAL STANDARDS

¶10 We review the circuit court’s decision denying Jackson’s
postconviction motion without a hearing under a mixed standard of review. State
v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶9, 274 Wis. 2d 568, 682 N.W.2d 433. We determine de
novo “whether the motion on its face alleges sufficient material facts that, if true,
would entitle the defendant to relief.” Id. “[I]f the motion does not raise facts
sufficient to entitle the movant to relief, or presents only conclusory allegations, or
if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief,
the circuit court has the discretion to grant or deny a hearing.” Id. The circuit
court’s decision to deny an insufficiently pleaded motion is reviewed “under the
deferential erroneous exercise of discretion standard.” Id.

¶11 For an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be successful, a
defendant must demonstrate both that: (1) counsel’s representation was deficient;
and (2) the deficiency was prejudicial. State v. Ruffin, 2022 WI 34, ¶29, 401
Wis. 2d 619, 974 N.W.2d 432. Both prongs of the inquiry need not be addressed
if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one. Id.

3
Jackson’s motion also contained several references to the ineffectiveness of “appellate
counsel.” The circuit court noted that any such claim was not properly before it pursuant to
State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 512-13, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992).

5
Nos. 2025AP4
2025AP5

DISCUSSION

¶12 Jackson seeks postconviction relief on two grounds. First, he argues
that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to joinder or moving to sever
his cases for trial, and that postconviction counsel was ineffective for not raising
trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. Second, he argues that postconviction counsel was
ineffective for not moving for a new trial on the child trafficking counts involving
Angela and Greta after the child trafficking count involving Melanie was
dismissed.

Joinder/Severance

¶13 In his motion, Jackson contended that joinder of his cases was
improper, and that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to it and for not
moving to sever after the cases were erroneously joined. He argued that the
offense concerning Melanie was not connected to those involving Angela and
Greta and that the evidence presented as to Melanie served only to prejudice him
with respect to the other charges. The circuit court determined that joinder was
appropriate, adopting the relevant portion of the State’s response to Jackson’s
WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion along with its joinder motion as its decision on this
issue.

¶14 We agree with the circuit court that Jackson’s cases were properly
joined, so trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to oppose joinder or move to
sever. WISCONSIN STAT. § 971.12 authorizes the joinder of two or more cases for
a single trial if the crimes are: (1) “of the same or similar character”; (2) “based on
the same act or transaction”; or (3) based on “2 or more acts or transactions
connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.”
Sec. 971.12(1), (4). Courts construe § 971.12 broadly in favor of joinder to further

6
Nos. 2025AP4
2025AP5

the goals of judicial efficiency, convenience and economy. State v. Salinas, 2016
WI 44, ¶36, 369 Wis. 2d 9, 879 N.W.2d 609. Here, the cases were properly joined
because the charged offenses are the same or of similar character, have shared
facts, and together constitute Jackson’s common scheme or plan to recruit and
sexually exploit vulnerable teenage girls for his own financial benefit. All charges
relate to sex trafficking, the time periods involving some of the crimes overlap,
and all occurred during a span of approximately four years. The victims were all
minors of similar age and were runaways when the crimes were committed.
Jackson assisted both Angela and Melanie in posting ads on Backpage and
transported them to prostitution dates. The evidence in the cases also overlaps, as
Angela and Greta were friends and witnesses to the charges involving each other,
and although Angela and Melanie did not know each other, Angela testified about
Jackson’s statements to her regarding Melanie making money for him by engaging
in prostitution. Further, the same law enforcement officials investigated the
crimes involving Angela and Greta.

¶15 Joinder was also appropriate because evidence of each victim would
be admissible as “other acts” evidence in both cases had they been tried separately.
See State v. Hoffman, 106 Wis. 2d 185, 210, 316 N.W.2d 143 (Ct. App. 1982)
(stating that prejudice from joinder is minimized where evidence from each case
would be admissible in separate trials as “other acts” evidence). For evidence of
“other acts” to be admissible under WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2), it must be: (1) offered
for an acceptable purpose, such as establishing motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident;
(2) relevant, considering the two facets of relevance set forth in WIS. STAT.
§ 904.01; and (3) more probative than prejudicial pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 904.03.
State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 772-73, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998).

7
Nos. 2025AP4
2025AP5

¶16 Beginning with the first element, the evidence related to each victim
was admissible for a proper purpose, including Jackson’s motive, intent, and
modus operandi. For each victim, Jackson was motivated by financial gain and he
sexually exploited, or attempted to sexually exploit, the victim for that purpose.
See State v. Gray, 225 Wis. 2d 39, 55, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999) (asserting that
motive in an earlier crime can show a common cause for both the earlier and a
later crime). Evidence of each victim’s trafficking or attempted trafficking is also
evidence of Jackson’s intent to engage in child trafficking and of his modus
operandi—targeting vulnerable, runaway teenage girls, providing them with drugs,
helping them set up prostitution dates via Backpage, and transporting them to
dates.

¶17 Evidence related to each victim also satisfies the relevance
requirement. “Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make
the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. WIS. STAT. § 904.01.
Given the similarity of Jackson’s conduct relating to each victim, the overlapping
evidence, and the similarity of the charges, this evidence makes consequential
facts more or less probable than they otherwise would be. See Gray, 225 Wis. 2d
at 58 (stating that the measure of probative value in assessing relevance is the
similarity between the charged offense and the other act).

¶18 Regarding the third element, the probative value of the evidence
substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to Jackson. Unfair
prejudice results when the evidence “has a tendency to influence the outcome of
the case by improper means” or “causes a jury to base its decision on something
other than the established propositions in the case.” State v. Veach, 2002 WI 110,
¶87, 255 Wis. 2d 390, 648 N.W.2d 447 (quoting State v. Davidson, 2000 WI 91,

8
Nos. 2025AP4
2025AP5

¶73, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606). The other acts evidence here is not
improper—instead it is highly relevant and arises from similar offenses and
Jackson’s repeated pattern of behavior. See Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 786-87
(stating that similar, repeated behavior is highly probative, making a strong case
for admission). Moreover, the court mitigated the danger of unfair prejudice by
instructing the jury to “make a finding as to each count, … [to] consider each one
separately,” and to not allow its verdict “in one count … [to] affect [its] verdict on
any other count.” See State v. Bell, 2025 WI App 75, ¶¶43-44, 419 Wis. 2d 261,
30 N.W.3d 456 (limiting jury instructions tailored to the facts of the case mitigate
the risk of unfair prejudice). In sum, joinder was appropriate because the cases
were connected and because the evidence related to any individual victim would
have been admissible as other acts evidence in a separate trial concerning any
other victim. Because we determine that Jackson’s cases were properly joined for
trial, we also conclude that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to
sever. Since trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to joinder or
move to sever, we also reject Jackson’s argument that postconviction counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel’s ineffectiveness on this issue.

Child Trafficking Counts

¶19 Jackson’s second claim is that postconviction counsel was
ineffective for failing to move for a new trial on the child trafficking counts
involving Angela and Greta after the dismissal of the child trafficking count
involving Melanie. Jackson argued that evidence related to the dismissed child
trafficking count prejudiced his right to a fair trial on the child trafficking counts
concerning Angela and Greta. The circuit court denied this claim pursuant to
Witkowski because it had previously decided this issue in its denial of Jackson’s
first postconviction motion, when it determined: “the evidence presented in

9
Nos. 2025AP4
2025AP5

regards to the vacated count does not create an issue of prejudicial error as to the
other counts because the evidence of that offense would have been admissible as
other acts evidence in any event.”

¶20 Jackson attempted to reframe this issue as the circuit court’s failure
to engage in an analysis pursuant to State v. McGuire, 204 Wis. 2d 372, 556
N.W.2d 111 (Ct. App. 1996), but McGuire is inapposite because it did not address
evidence admissible as “other acts,” and in any event, did not find any prejudice to
the defendant where the evidence from the vacated count would have been
otherwise admissible. Id. at 380-83. We agree that Jackson is procedurally barred
from relitigating this issue. See Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d at 990. Accordingly, we
affirm the circuit court’s decision denying this claim as barred by Witkowski.

¶21 Finally, Jackson’s motion and appellate brief contain several
references to the ineffectiveness of “appellate counsel,” and he criticizes the
claims his appellate counsel brought on appeal. To the extent that he is asserting a
claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, that claim was properly denied
by the circuit court because such claims must be brought through a habeas corpus
petition filed with this court. See Knight, 168 Wis. 2d at 512-13.

¶22 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s order
denying Jacksons WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

10