State v. Ted J. Bruno

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT IV
April 23, 2026
To:
Hon. Mario White
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Jeff Okazaki
Clerk of Circuit Court
Dane County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
Brent Simerson
Electronic Notice
John W. Kellis
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2024AP564-CR State v. Ted J. Bruno (L.C. # 2017CF2769)
Before Blanchard, Nashold, and Taylor, JJ.
Summary disposition orders 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).
Ted Bruno appeals an order of commitment and an order denying his motion for
postdisposition relief. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at
conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21
(2023-24).1
During a bifurcated trial, a jury found Bruno guilty of first-degree intentional homicide,
but during the trial’s responsibility phase, the jury found him not guilty by reason of mental
disease or defect. Bruno was ordered committed to the Wisconsin Department of Health
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2024AP564-CR
2
Services. Bruno filed a postdisposition motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by
not moving to dismiss without prejudice the first-degree intentional homicide charge early in the
case, when Bruno did not receive a timely preliminary examination. See WIS. STAT. § 970.03(2).
The circuit court denied the motion.
Bruno maintains his ineffective assistance argument on appeal. To establish ineffective
assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that
such performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
We need not address both components of the analysis if a defendant makes an inadequate
showing on one. Id. at 697. To demonstrate prejudice, the defendant must show that there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different. Id. at 694. A reasonable probability is one sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome. Id. We affirm the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous, but the determination of deficient performance and prejudice are questions of
law that we review without deference to the circuit court. State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628, 633-
34, 369 N.W.2d 711 (1985).
For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that the performance of Bruno’s
trial counsel was deficient in not moving to dismiss the case without prejudice when Bruno’s
preliminary hearing was delayed, and that such a motion, if brought, would have been granted.
Instead, our analysis focuses on whether Bruno was prejudiced as a result of trial counsel not
moving to dismiss the case without prejudice.
Bruno argues that he suffered prejudice because dismissal without prejudice would have
been a decision in his favor that would have put him in a better legal position than he was in

No. 2024AP564-CR
3
while the case was pending. It is true that dismissal without prejudice would be an improvement
in a defendant’s position.
The State responds that any such improvement would have been temporary, because the
State would have refiled the case. Bruno does not dispute that we may properly consider
whether the State would have refiled the case. Instead, Bruno suggests possible reasons that the
State might have chosen not to refile the case. He also posits various ways in which any new
case might have proceeded differently from the case that actually occurred, in ways that would
have been to his benefit. While at least some of Bruno’s suggested alternative paths are
plausible, none of them rise to the level of undermining our confidence that the eventual outcome
of a hypothetical new case would have been the same as the actual case. Therefore, we conclude
that Bruno’s postdisposition motion was properly denied because Bruno failed to establish
prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED that the orders appealed from are summarily affirmed under WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals