State v. Anthony J. Lewis

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.
October 2, 2025
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 No. 2024AP888-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2019CF85

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

ANTHONY J. LEWIS,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Green
County: FAUN MARIE PHILLIPSON, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Blanchard, Kloppenburg, and Taylor, 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. Anthony Lewis appeals a judgment of conviction
and an order denying his postconviction motion. We affirm.
No. 2024AP888-CR

¶2 After a jury trial, Lewis was convicted of one felony count of child
abuse-intentionally causing harm, and one misdemeanor count of bail jumping. He
filed a postconviction motion, which the circuit court denied without an evidentiary
hearing.

¶3 Lewis argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s
guilty verdicts because the information charged the offenses as having occurred on
Saturday, June 29, 2019, but there was a lack of clarity in the trial evidence as to
whether the crime occurred on that day, or instead on the following day. This
argument fails for several reasons.

¶4 First, the information actually charged the offenses as having occurred
“on or about” June 29, 2019, and this description of the charges was provided to the
jury in the instructions. The date after the specified date qualifies as “about” the
specified date.

¶5 Second, the instructions informed the jury that “it is not necessary for
the State to prove that the offense was committed on a specific date. If the evidence
shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed during the time
period alleged in the information, that is sufficient.” Lewis does not claim that he
objected to this instruction or that the circuit court otherwise erred in giving it. We
ordinarily review verdicts in light of the instructions the jury was given, and here
there was no instruction requiring it to find the date of the offenses.

¶6 Third, even if we were to review this as a sufficiency of the evidence
question, Lewis makes no argument based on the applicable standard. We affirm
the verdict unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State and the
conviction, is so insufficient in probative value and force that no reasonable trier of

2
No. 2024AP888-CR

fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Poellinger, 153
Wis. 2d 493, 501, 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990).

¶7 Lewis does not argue that the evidence failed to meet this sufficiency
standard. He acknowledges witness testimony that the offenses occurred on
June 29, 2019, and argues only that, in light of other evidence, there was a “lack of
clarity” and “lack of certainty” about the date of the incident. However, those are
not the applicable tests.

¶8 Lewis also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in two ways.
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel’s
performance was deficient and that such performance prejudiced him. Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

¶9 As noted, the circuit court denied the postconviction motion without
an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the question here is whether Lewis was entitled
to such a hearing. The court first looks at whether the facts alleged in the
postconviction motion, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief. State v.
Jackson, 2023 WI 3, ¶11, 405 Wis. 2d 458, 983 N.W.2d 608. If they do, the court
must determine whether the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is
not entitled to relief. Id.

¶10 In attempting to allege facts that would entitle him to relief, Lewis
must allege objective factual assertions which allow the reviewing court to
meaningfully assess his claim. State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 313-14, 548
N.W.2d 50 (1996). This is a question of law that we decide without deference to
the circuit court. Id. at 310.

3
No. 2024AP888-CR

¶11 Lewis first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by not calling
certain witnesses. The circuit court concluded that Lewis failed to sufficiently
allege either deficient performance or prejudice on this claim, because these
potential witnesses were not with Lewis and the victim during or after the alleged
child abuse, but only before it. The court concluded that this was true regardless of
whether the abuse occurred late in the day on June 29, 2019, or early in the day on
June 30, 2019.

¶12 Lewis argues that these witnesses could have testified that they did
not see abuse and did not see any medical or emotional distress of the victim.
However, Lewis does not persuasively address the temporal aspect of the circuit
court’s analysis and explain how the jury could have used the testimony of these
witnesses in relation to the State’s claim. It appears that the testimony he now
proposes would be irrelevant because it fails to counter the State’s allegations or to
support a viable defense theory. Therefore, Lewis failed to allege either deficient
performance or prejudice.

¶13 Lewis next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by not offering
photographs of the victim that were taken on June 29, 2019, and that, as described
by Lewis, do not show any injuries or distress. The circuit court rejected this claim
for the same reason as the first claim, that is, because the photographs were taken
before either of the times when the child abuse might have occurred. On appeal,
Lewis again fails to acknowledge the irrelevancy created by this timing, and
therefore this claim also fails.

By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. (2023-24).

4