State v. Travis A. Jackson

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 II
October 27, 2021
To:
Hon. Laura F. Lau
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Monica Paz
Clerk of Circuit Court
Waukesha County
Electronic Notice
Christopher P. August
Electronic Notice
Susan Lee Opper
Electronic Notice
Sara Lynn Shaeffer
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2020AP1539-CR State of Wisconsin v. Travis A. Jackson (L.C. #2017CF1237)
Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Grogan, 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).
Travis A. Jackson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pled guilty to
burglary of a building or dwelling as party to a crime, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 943.10(1m)(a)
and 939.05 (2019-20).1 He also appeals from the postconviction order summarily denying his
motion alleging his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. 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. We affirm.
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.

No. 2020AP1539-CR
2
In August 2017, Jackson joined his then-new-girlfriend, C.K., and her two sons for a trip
to Lake Delton. C.K. packed her Toyota Corolla with the family’s belongings for the trip and
picked up Jackson. While in Lake Delton, Jackson and C.K. had an argument during which
Jackson took C.K.’s keys and car without her permission and left Lake Delton by himself. He
drove to his friend, Christopher D. Robertson’s home, and together they decided to go to C.K.’s
apartment in Waukesha to steal her belongings. Jackson and Robertson drove to C.K.’s
apartment in her Corolla and entered her apartment without her permission. The two were
captured on video surveillance loading televisions and other containers from C.K.’s apartment
into her Corolla and another car she had parked at her apartment that belonged to her father,
M.K. After loading both cars, Jackson and Robertson drove away.
C.K.’s mother drove to Lake Delton to bring C.K. and her sons home to find her
televisions, video game systems, DVD player, and other property gone. As the police conducted
their investigation, C.K. began receiving text messages from someone whom she believed to be
Jackson. The messages said Robertson had her property. C.K. texted Jackson saying she wanted
her property back and she would be asking the judge to sentence Jackson to the maximum.
Jackson responded to her saying “U have to live to see it first” and sent a picture of Jackson
holding a gun with the caption “bow.” The two stolen cars were later found abandoned.
Jackson and Robertson were charged with burglary of a building or dwelling as party to a
crime, two counts of operating a motor vehicle without owner’s consent as party to a crime, and
Jackson was charged with misdemeanor intimidation of a victim. Ultimately, Jackson pled
guilty to the burglary of a building or dwelling as a party to a crime with the other three counts
dismissed and read in. The victims, C.K. and M.K., submitted restitution forms. C.K. listed
“Items from my car $2,757” and “Stolen from my house $3,350” for a total amount of $6,107.

No. 2020AP1539-CR
3
A detailed listing of the items was attached to the restitution form. M.K. listed his loss as
$3,210.22, attaching multiple repair receipts documenting the damage done to his car.
At the December 2018 plea hearing, the prosecutor began by reciting the plea agreement
and identifying the restitution amounts as $3,210.22 for M.K. and $6,107 for C.K., noting that
both victims were present in court. The court then asked defense counsel: “[I]s that an accurate
recitation of the plea agreement?” Defense counsel responded that it was. The court then
directly asked Jackson, “is that your agreement today?” and Jackson answered, “Yes, ma’am.”
Jackson also acknowledged he understood that restitution could be ordered based on the
dismissed and read-in charges. The court accepted Jackson’s plea and heard arguments as to
sentencing.
M.K. made a statement. He told the circuit court that his family searched for the stolen
property and located it at “a girlfriend’s house who subsequently moved, and any hope of
recovery of anything was lost.” M.K. told the circuit court that Jackson started threatening the
family after he was arrested and was “taunting my family on the internet with pictures of my
grandson’s clothing, computers, game consoles, as well as their piggy banks.” Jackson’s counsel
told the circuit court that Jackson “wanted to return the property to the victim. However,
Mr. Robertson had taken the property and would not cooperate with that plan.” Trial counsel
told the circuit court Jackson “would like to speak.” Jackson admitted stealing from C.K. and
told the court that C.K. “didn’t really want to press charges and that she just wanted her stuff
back.” Jackson explained that he asked Robertson to return C.K.’s property, but Robertson
refused “and ran off with the property.” The court decided to order a presentence investigation
report (PSI) before imposing sentence.

No. 2020AP1539-CR
4
Jackson told the PSI author that C.K. “didn’t get her property back” but “she did get her
car back.” The PSI report noted that “[r]estitution worksheets were completed for the missing
items from the residence totaling: $3350.00, as well as missing items from the trunk of the
stolen vehicle totaling $2757, equaling $6107.00.” After the PSI was prepared, the court
continued the sentencing hearing in March 2019. The court sentenced Jackson to a seven-year
sentence with three years’ initial confinement followed by four years’ extended supervision to be
served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. After sentence was imposed, the
prosecutor asked the court to order restitution, specifically identifying M.K.’s amount of
$3,210.22 and C.K.’s amount of $6,107 for a total of $9,317.22. The court asked defense
counsel about the restitution request and defense counsel responded: “We don’t dispute that,
your Honor.” The court then ordered those restitution amounts and asked: “Any points of
clarification that we need to make[?]” Defense counsel asked about Early Release or Challenge
Incarceration and the court agreed to make Jackson eligible for both. Jackson then spoke up
asking the court if he could “say one more thing.” The court said “Sure” and Jackson asked if
the court could transfer him to a different prison. The court explained it could not but that he
should discuss his concerns with his attorney.
In June 2020, Jackson filed a postconviction motion asking for a restitution hearing.
Jackson claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly handle
restitution. Jackson says his trial counsel stipulated to the restitution amount without discussing
it with him and that Jackson would have insisted on a restitution hearing because “the $2,757
worth of items [C.K.] says were stolen from her car were actually recovered when the Corolla
was recovered.” In August 2020, the circuit court held a hearing on the motion. It recounted
that at the sentencing hearing, the court specifically asked if the defense had any corrections to

No. 2020AP1539-CR
5
the PSI, which explicitly referenced restitution worksheets and the specific restitution amounts
from both C.K.’s home and her car. The circuit court explained: “In so many instances the issue
related to restitution was laid out. It was done orally. It was done in writing, it was done in
many different documents.” The circuit court noted that “[n]o hearing is required if the
Defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his or her motion, if the Defendant presents only
conclusory allegations or subject[ive] opinion, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that he
or she is not entitled to relief.” The circuit court ruled:
We referenced [restitution] time and time again. Mr. Jackson
was absolutely involved in his defense. We have the Victim
Impact Statement that lays it out item by item, more detail than I
see in most cases, for sure. The presentence investigation also
completely referenced that, broke it down into two different
numbers, didn’t just lump it together.
And then the Court had a colloquy with Mr. Jackson, and I
looked back at the transcript. And I told you, you have a great
presentation in court, you are very verbal. I don’t believe that you
didn’t understand what you had agreed to.
And for you to say that your attorney made some agreement on
your behalf that you didn’t agree to, based upon your appearance
and demeanor in court and even making your own statement, the
Court believes you would have spoken up. And you had many
opportunities to do that.
The circuit court denied Jackson’s motion, finding he failed to satisfy the requirements to
warrant a Machner2 hearing. We agree.
“A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.”
State v. Sholar, 2018 WI 53, ¶32, 381 Wis. 2d 560, 912 N.W.2d 89 (citing State v. Balliette,
2011 WI 79, ¶21, 336 Wis. 2d 358, 805 N.W.2d 334). A defendant is denied that right when
2 State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).

No. 2020AP1539-CR
6
counsel performs deficiently and the deficiency is prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628, 633, 369 N.W.2d 711 (1985).
A Machner hearing is a prerequisite to an ineffective assistance claim. Sholar,
381 Wis. 2d 560, ¶¶50-51 (citing State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 804, 285 N.W.2d 905
(Ct. App. 1979)); State v. Curtis, 218 Wis. 2d 550, 554, 555 n.3, 582 N.W.2d 409 (Ct. App.
1998) (“assuming there are factual allegations which, if found to be true, might warrant a finding
of ineffective assistance of counsel, an evidentiary hearing is a prerequisite to appellate review of
an ineffective assistance of counsel issue”). “A defendant is entitled to a Machner hearing only
when his motion alleges sufficient facts, which if true, would entitle him to relief.” Sholar,
381 Wis. 2d 560, ¶50 (citing State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, ¶14, 274 Wis. 2d 568, 682 N.W.2d
433). This means Jackson must allege sufficient facts to establish that his counsel’s performance
was both deficient and prejudicial. See State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 309-10, 548 N.W.2d
50 (1996). When a defendant simply makes conclusory allegations in his motion, his claim may
be summarily rejected without an evidentiary hearing. Levesque v. State, 63 Wis. 2d 412, 421,
217 N.W.2d 317 (1974). “[I]f the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not
entitled to relief, the circuit court has the discretion to grant or deny a hearing.” Sholar,
381 Wis. 2d 560, ¶50 (citation omitted).
Jackson alleged in his postconviction motion that the victim, C.K., got some of her
property back—namely the items that were in her Corolla—which amounted to $2,757 of the
restitution awarded. His entire argument rests on his assertion that C.K. recovered this property.
He claims he did not know the restitution amounts documented in the record and repeatedly
discussed during his court hearings included this $2,757. Jackson asserts that if his trial counsel
would have discussed restitution with him, he would have requested a restitution hearing.

No. 2020AP1539-CR
7
Jackson’s allegations are insufficient to warrant a Machner hearing. His allegations are
self-serving, purely conclusory, and not supported by any specific facts. Moreover, the record
conclusively refutes Jackson’s assertion that C.K. recovered some of her property. Jackson was
in court when C.K.’s father told the circuit court that C.K. did not get her property back despite
the family’s efforts to track down the items Jackson stole from C.K. and her two sons. In fact,
Jackson himself corroborated M.K.’s statement about his daughter not getting any of her things
back. Jackson told both the circuit court and the PSI author that C.K. did not get any of this
property back. He explained to the court that he tried to get C.K.’s property back, but his co-
defendant refused to return it and absconded with the property. Jackson also specifically told the
PSI author that C.K. did not get any of her property back except her car.
Jackson’s postconviction motion failed to allege any specific facts to show his trial
counsel acted deficiently or that any deficient performance prejudiced him. Jackson claimed
only that his trial counsel stipulated to the restitution amount without discussing it with him and
that if restitution had been discussed, he would have challenged the $2,757 amount. These self-
serving and conclusory statements are not supported by any specific factual allegations. Jackson
needed to allege more than his lawyer failed to discuss restitution with him or that he would have
requested a restitution hearing because even if these assertions were true, he would not have been
entitled to relief. See Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 309-10 (Machner hearing required if defendant
alleges facts which, if true, entitle him to relief).
Jackson’s allegations also do not warrant a Machner hearing because the record
conclusively shows he would not be entitled to relief. See Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 309-10. The
record fully supports the restitution amounts and that Jackson had many opportunities to speak
up during the repeated discussions about restitution. The only amount Jackson challenges is the

No. 2020AP1539-CR
8
$2,757, which represented the items stolen from C.K.’s car. The record conclusively
demonstrates that at the time the circuit court ordered restitution, it was undisputed that C.K. did
not get back any of the stolen items. Jackson himself specifically admitted to both the circuit
court and the PSI author that he tried to get these items back for C.K., but his co-defendant took
all of C.K.’s property and absconded. Jackson fails to allege any specific facts to show how his
trial counsel could be deficient for stipulating to restitution for property Jackson admitted he
stole from C.K. and that Jackson admitted C.K. never received back.
The circuit court did not err when it summarily denied Jackson’s postconviction motion.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment and order of the circuit court are summarily affirmed,
pursuant to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals