State v. Domonique Maurice Crayton

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 I
October 13, 2026
To:
Hon. Jeffrey A. Wagner
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Anna Hodges
Clerk of Circuit Court
Milwaukee County Safety Building
Electronic Notice
John Blimling
Electronic Notice
Leonard D. Kachinsky
Electronic Notice
Domonique Maurice Crayton 468624
Green Bay Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 19033
Green Bay, WI 54307-9033
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2024AP1618-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Domonique Maurice Crayton
(L.C. # 2018CF912)
Before Donald C.J., Colón P.J., and Petrashek, J.
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).
Domonique Maurice Crayton appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury
found him guilty of five crimes. His appellate counsel, Attorney Leonard D. Kachinsky, filed a
no-merit report pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and WIS. STAT. RULE
809.32 (2023-24).1 In response to a subsequent order of this court, Attorney Kachinsky
requested preparation of additional transcripts and, after those transcripts were included in the
record, filed a supplemental no-merit report. Crayton did not file a response to either report.
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version unless otherwise noted.

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
2
Upon consideration of the no-merit reports and following an independent review of the record as
required by Anders, we conclude that no arguably meritorious basis exists for additional
proceedings. Therefore, we summarily affirm. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
According to the criminal complaint, S.S.W. told police that on February 20, 2018, she
was sitting with a friend in a car parked on a Milwaukee street when Crayton and his co-actor,
Melody Gray, seized S.S.W. at gunpoint, forced her into Crayton’s vehicle, and then beat her
because, they said, she was prostituting herself without giving the money to Crayton. S.S.W.
said that Crayton next drove her to a garage at a second Milwaukee location, demanded at
gunpoint that she perform oral sex on him, and then engaged in penis-to-vagina intercourse with
her. Crayton later brought her to a third Milwaukee location, a residence, where she spent the
night. The next day, S.S.W. convinced Crayton that he should release her so that she could go to
an appointment. Upon escaping from him, she contacted the police, reported the seizure and
assaults, and also reported that Crayton had been prostituting her for approximately three years.
The complaint further alleged that Crayton was previously convicted of a felony in Wisconsin
and that the conviction had not been reversed.
The State subsequently filed an amended complaint that included the foregoing and
further alleged that on February 26, 2018, the Milwaukee Fire Department responded to a fire at
a Milwaukee residence. Investigators found a can of gasoline in the basement stairwell and
observed a burn pattern in the building consistent with the pouring of an ignitable liquid. The
building’s tenant, G.M., later spoke with a detective. G.M. said that she had been out of town
when the fire started and that Crayton, who was her boyfriend’s brother, was the only other
person with a key to the residence. G.M. went on to tell the detective about an argument with
Crayton and Gray a few days earlier after they brought “a strange girl” to the residence. A

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
3
second detective examined surveillance video recorded near the residence on February 26, 2018,
and determined that the video showed two subjects entering the residence, one carrying a gas
can. When the subjects left the residence, smoke could be seen coming from the building.
The State charged Crayton with five crimes arising out of the foregoing allegations:
kidnapping as a party to a crime; human trafficking; second degree sexual assault; possession of
a firearm while a felon; and arson of a building as a party to a crime. The matters proceeded to
trial, and a jury found Crayton guilty as charged. At sentencing, the circuit court imposed an
aggregate 87-year term of imprisonment bifurcated as 60 years of initial confinement and 27
years of extended supervision.2 The circuit court ordered Crayton to pay $4,585 to G.M. as
restitution and granted him 1,860 days of sentence credit. Shortly after sentencing, the circuit
court amended the award of sentence credit to 1,772 days in response to a letter from the DOC.
Following an inquiry from this court, appellate counsel pursued a claim for additional
sentence credit. The circuit court subsequently modified the sentence credit award to 1,845 days.
2 For the kidnapping conviction, Crayton faced a maximum penalty of 40 years of imprisonment
and a $100,000 fine. See WIS. STAT. §§ 940.31(1)(a), 939.50(3)(c) (2017-18). The circuit court imposed
15 years of initial confinement and 5 years of extended supervision. For the human trafficking
conviction, Crayton faced a maximum penalty of 25 years of imprisonment and a $100,000 fine. See
WIS. STAT. §§ 940.302(2)(a), 939.50(3)(d) (2017-18). The circuit court imposed ten years of initial
confinement and seven years of extended supervision. For the second-degree sexual assault conviction,
Crayton faced a maximum penalty of 40 years of imprisonment and a $100,000 fine. See WIS. STAT.
§§ 940.225(2)(a), 939.50(3)(c) (2017-18). The circuit court imposed 20 years of initial confinement and
10 years of extended supervision. For possessing a firearm while a felon, Crayton faced a maximum
penalty of 10 years of imprisonment and a $25,000 fine. See WIS. STAT. §§ 941.29(1m)(a), 939.50(3)(g)
(2017-18). The circuit court imposed an evenly bifurcated six-year term of imprisonment. For the arson
conviction, Crayton faced 40 years of imprisonment and a $100,000 fine. See WIS. STAT.
§§ 943.02(1)(a), 939.50(3)(c) (2017-18). The circuit court imposed 15 years of initial confinement and 5
years of extended supervision. The circuit court ordered Crayton to serve the firearm sentence
concurrently with any other sentence and ordered that he serve the other four sentences consecutively.

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
4
In the no-merit report, appellate counsel first considers whether Crayton could pursue an
arguably meritorious challenge to either of the circuit court’s determinations that he was
competent to proceed. “No person who lacks substantial mental capacity to understand the
proceedings or assist in his or her defense may be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the
commission of an offense so long as the incapacity endures.” State v. Byrge, 2000 WI 101, ¶28,
237 Wis. 2d 197, 614 N.W.2d 477 (citation omitted). Crayton was frequently disruptive during
the courtroom proceedings, voicing repetitive but often unspecified objections, making
references to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and other irrelevant federal statutes,
questioning the presiding judges about their authority, and demanding money. A circuit court
first ordered a competency evaluation in July 2020, after concluding that Crayton’s assertions
were “completely nonresponsive” to the court’s inquiries regarding whether he wanted to
represent himself. The examining psychologist determined that Crayton was aware of the
specific charges against him, was familiar with the roles of the judge and the attorneys, could
identify choices available to him for resolving the case, and displayed a desire to resolve his case
in a “legally self-serving fashion.” The psychologist concluded that Crayton was competent. No
party contested that conclusion, and the circuit court found him competent to proceed.
In October 2022, again based on Crayton’s repeated nonresponsive remarks, a successor
circuit court ordered a competency evaluation. A second examining psychologist found Crayton
“goal directed” and “organized” and “did not find any evidence of mental impairment affecting
[his] understanding of his legal circumstances.” The psychologist opined that Crayton did not
lack substantial capacity to understand court proceedings or to assist in his own defense if he
chose to do so. The circuit court found Crayton competent, again without objection from any
party.

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
5
To determine legal competency, the circuit court considers a defendant’s present mental
capacity to understand and assist at the time of the proceedings. Byrge, 237 Wis. 2d 197, ¶¶30-
31. A circuit court’s competency determination should be reversed only when clearly erroneous.
Id., ¶46. In light of the psychologists’ reports and the standard of review, any further
proceedings in regard to Crayton’s competency would lack arguable merit.
We next consider whether Crayton could pursue an arguably meritorious challenge to the
circuit court’s decision, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 907.02, and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), granting the State’s motion to admit expert testimony about human
trafficking. “We review the admission of expert testimony for an erroneous exercise of
discretion,” and therefore, “we will not reverse the [circuit] court’s decision ‘if it has a rational
basis and was made in accordance with accepted legal standards in view of the facts in the
record.’” State v. Smith, 2016 WI App 8, ¶4, 366 Wis. 2d 613, 874 N.W.2d 610 (citation
omitted). At the Daubert hearing, the State’s proposed expert, Milwaukee Police Officer
Gerardo Orozco, testified about his extensive professional training, observations, education, and
experience in the area of human trafficking. The circuit court found that he was qualified to give
expert testimony about human trafficking. In light of the testimony presented at the Daubert
hearing and the standard of review, a challenge to the admission of the expert’s testimony would
lack arguable merit.
We next consider whether Crayton could pursue an arguably meritorious claim that he
was denied the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Wisconsin courts analyze a speedy trial
claim pursuant to the four-factor balancing test developed in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530
(1972). State v. Ramirez, 2025 WI 28, ¶30, 416 Wis. 2d 641, 22 N.W.3d 821. The factors that
must be balanced are: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
6
assertion or failure to assert the speedy trial right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Barker,
407 U.S. at 530. “Like any balancing test, it requires the court to consider the totality of
circumstances particular to the case.” Ramirez, 416 Wis. 2d 641, ¶30.
The first factor of the balancing test, length of delay, exceeds a year in this case: Crayton
was arrested in connection with this matter on March 5, 2018, and trial began a little more than
five years later, on March 20, 2023. This period of delay triggers consideration of the remaining
factors. See id., ¶¶31-32. The second factor requires an examination of whether the State or the
defendant is more to blame for the delay Id., ¶39. The record here shows that Crayton impeded
the progress of the case by his lack of cooperation with a series of three attorneys and his
disruption of the courtroom proceedings with continuous and frequently nonsensical questions,
comments, and demands. His behavior twice required the circuit court to suspend the
proceedings to explore his competency, both times resulting in an assessment that Crayton was
competent and was proceeding in a goal-directed way. His courtroom conduct also led to circuit
court findings that he was engaged in a “strategy to delay his trial,” and was “calculating to
disrupt.” While the State requested several delays based on witness unavailability, the
prosecutor’s family emergency and medical needs, and a problem in obtaining discovery, only
the discovery problem weighs against the State, see id., ¶¶40-41, and the record reflects that the
problem was quickly resolved. Accordingly, we agree with appellate counsel that Crayton was
responsible for the bulk of the delay in this case.
Regarding the third factor, Crayton never demanded a speedy trial. That circumstance
normally weighs against a defendant, id., ¶49, and weighs heavily here because the circuit court
found that Crayton was deliberately causing delay, see State v. Coleman, 2025 WI App 7, ¶¶66-
67, 415 Wis. 2d 71, 17 N.W.3d 307. As to the fourth factor, a court assesses prejudice by

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
7
considering “oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety and concern, and the possibility the
defense will be impaired.” Ramirez, 416 Wis. 2d 641, ¶51. The record here does not provide
arguable support for any of those considerations. Crayton told a psychologist in 2022 that he
was “sleeping well” and did not have any mental health needs. He did not complain to the
circuit court about anxiety or distress. His defense was unaffected by the delay: he represented
himself at trial, elected not to offer any evidence, and declined to question any witnesses.
In the absence of prejudice, and where the record shows that Crayton did not want a
prompt disposition but instead sought delay, he cannot make an arguably meritorious claim that
he was denied the right to a speedy trial. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 536. Further pursuit of this
issue would be frivolous within the meaning of Anders.
We next consider whether Crayton could raise an arguably meritorious claim that the
circuit court erred by permitting Crayton’s third and final attorney to withdraw. We agree with
appellate counsel that any such claim would lack arguable merit because Crayton forfeited the
right to counsel.
Forfeiture of the right to counsel arises when a defendant’s actions frustrate the “orderly
and efficient progression of the case[.]” State v. Suriano, 2017 WI 42, ¶24, 374 Wis. 2d 683,
893 N.W.2d 543 (citation omitted). In Suriano, our supreme court stated:
Scenarios triggering forfeiture include: (1) a defendant’s
manipulative and disruptive behavior; (2) withdrawal of multiple
attorneys based on a defendant’s consistent refusal to cooperate
with any of them and constant complaints about the attorneys’
performance; (3) a defendant whose attitude is defiant and whose
choices repeatedly result in delay, interfering with the process of
justice[;] ... and (4) physical or verbal abuse directed at counsel or
the court.

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
8
Id. (citations omitted). A forfeiture of the right to counsel “occurs by operation of law without
the need to ensure a defendant knows he is losing [the] right and regardless of whether he intends
to do so.” Id., ¶33.
The circuit court permitted Crayton’s first appointed counsel to withdraw in light of
counsel’s disclosure that Crayton had “taken action” against the lawyer. Crayton’s second
appointed counsel moved to withdraw within weeks of the appointment, explaining that Crayton
had asked counsel to withdraw at their first meeting. After the circuit court granted the motion,
Crayton said that he did not want another appointed lawyer and did not need representation from
“an agent of the state” or “a foreign entity.” The circuit court then attempted a colloquy with
Crayton regarding his apparent wish to represent himself. See State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194,
206, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997) (describing the colloquy required to determine whether a criminal
defendant voluntarily waives the right to counsel). Crayton did not answer the court’s questions
and instead sought to interrogate the judge regarding a judicial oath and proceedings under
“Article 3 Commonwealth.” The circuit court did not complete the Klessig colloquy, and the
state public defender appointed a third lawyer, Attorney Kerri Cleghorn, to represent Crayton.
Crayton told the circuit court at his first appearance with Attorney Cleghorn that he
wanted her to serve only as standby counsel, and he stated at the next appearance that he did not
want her involved in the case at all. Attorney Cleghorn herself repeatedly sought to withdraw on
the grounds that Crayton would not cooperate with her and did not want her as his attorney. The
circuit court eventually permitted her to withdraw following a motion hearing at which Crayton
asserted “common law copyright or property,” demanded millions of dollars, and prevented
anyone else from talking by repeating the word “objection” until he was removed from the
courtroom. The circuit court found that it had presided over six hearings in the case and that on

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
9
every occasion Crayton had been removed from the courtroom within minutes “based on his
continuous interruptions and refusal to allow others to speak.” The circuit court then appointed
Attorney Cleghorn as standby counsel, stating that the appointment would assist the court. See
State v. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, ¶64, 294 Wis. 2d 100, 718 N.W.2d 649. She continued in the
role of standby counsel throughout the remainder of the circuit court proceedings.
We conclude that, by operation of law, Crayton forfeited his right to counsel by refusing
to cooperate with any attorney appointed for him and by his efforts to disrupt and delay the
proceedings, including the proceedings to address the issue of his representation. See Suriano,
374 Wis. 2d 683, ¶¶24, 32-33. Accordingly, he has no arguably meritorious grounds to claim
that the circuit court erred by permitting his third attorney to withdraw and appointing her as
standby counsel instead.
We next consider whether Crayton could pursue an arguably meritorious claim that he
received ineffective assistance from any of the three trial attorneys appointed to represent him.
To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a convicted person must show both that counsel’s
performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Our review of the record does not reveal any basis on
which Crayton could allege that any of the three attorneys performed deficiently while
representing him. Moreover, the case proceeded to trial more than nine months after the last of
Crayton’s three attorneys was permitted to withdraw. Crayton thus had ample time to raise and
litigate any claim that he thought necessary to correct perceived errors or omissions of counsel.
We therefore see no arguably meritorious basis for a claim that he was prejudiced by any such
perceived errors or omissions.

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
10
Crayton also cannot raise an arguably meritorious claim that his standby-counsel was
ineffective. There is no constitutional right to standby counsel. See State v. Cummings, 199
Wis. 2d 721, 753 n.15, 546 N.W.2d 406 (1996); see also United States v. Vizcarra-Millan, 15
F.4th 473, 488 (7th Cir. 2021). Because Crayton did not have a right to standby counsel, he did
not have a right to effective assistance of standby counsel. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722, 752 (1991) (explaining that where there is no constitutional right to counsel, there can be no
deprivation of effective assistance of counsel); see also Simpson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 585, 597
(7th Cir. 2006).
Appellate counsel discusses the various pretrial motions that Crayton filed on his own
behalf, including challenges to the circuit court’s jurisdiction, challenges related to property
rights and the UCC, and a motion to dismiss “for violations of the maxims of equity.” We agree
with appellate counsel’s conclusion that Crayton’s motions did not raise legally cognizable
claims and that further pursuit of these matters would lack arguable merit.
We next consider whether the evidence at Crayton’s jury trial was sufficient to support
his convictions. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we may not substitute our
judgment for that of the jury “unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to the [S]tate and the
conviction, is so lacking in probative value and force that no trier of fact, acting reasonably,
could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507,
451 N.W.2d 752 (1990). Our review satisfies us that the State produced ample evidence to
convict Crayton of the five charges that he faced.
S.S.W. testified and described how Crayton advertised her services as an escort, brought
her to hotels where she had sex with men for money, seized and transported her against her will,

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
11
and sexually assaulted her at gunpoint. Crayton’s accomplice, Gray, described her role in the
offenses against S.S.W. Gray further testified that a few days after those offenses, she and
Crayton went to the home where they had stayed and set it on fire because Crayton wanted to
“g[e]t rid of any trace of us.” Officer Orozco testified about the methods used by human
traffickers. Additional law enforcement officers as well as forensic analysts testified about the
evidence collected and examined during the investigations of S.S.W.’s allegations and the fire at
G.M.’s home. An investigator and former police officer authenticated a certified judgment of
conviction showing that Crayton was a convicted felon, and the investigator testified that the
felony conviction remained unreversed. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the convictions would lack arguable merit.
Appellate counsel considers whether Crayton could pursue an arguably meritorious claim
for relief based on errors that occurred during the trial. We agree with appellate counsel that
Crayton could not do so. The circuit court found, and the record shows, that Crayton elected not
to participate in the trial.3 He therefore did not preserve any claims of trial error for appellate
review. See State v. Rogers, 196 Wis. 2d 817, 828-29, 539 N.W.2d 897 (Ct. App. 1995).
Next, we agree with appellate counsel that Crayton could not pursue an arguably
meritorious challenge to the circuit court’s exercise of sentencing discretion. See State v.
Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶17, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. The court indicated that
punishment was the primary sentencing goal and discussed the factors that it viewed as relevant
3 The record reflects that Crayton was brought to the courtroom for the start of each day of trial.
On each occasion, he interrupted the court with nonsensical and irrelevant questions and statements, made
repeated assertions regarding a “consensual contract,” and demanded to be paid. He was eventually taken
out of the courtroom during each day’s proceedings following what was recorded as “continuous loud,
inaudible outbursts.”

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
12
to achieving that goal. See id., ¶¶41-43. The court’s discussion included the mandatory
sentencing factors of “the gravity of the offense[s], the character of the defendant, and the need
to protect the public.” See State v. Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, ¶23, 289 Wis. 2d 594, 712 N.W.2d
76. The aggregate 87-year term of imprisonment imposed was far less than the aggregate 155
years of imprisonment and $335,000 in fines that Crayton faced upon conviction. Crayton
therefore cannot mount an arguably meritorious claim that his sentences were excessive or
shocking. See State v. Mursal, 2013 WI App 125, ¶26, 351 Wis. 2d 180, 839 N.W.2d 173. We
conclude that a challenge to the circuit court’s exercise of sentencing discretion would be
frivolous within the meaning of Anders.
Appellate counsel does not consider whether Crayton could pursue an arguably
meritorious challenge to the circuit court’s order that he pay restitution to G.M. in the amount of
$4,585. We conclude that Crayton could not do so. The State filed a written restitution request
before sentencing, and the prosecutor further explained the basis for the request at the sentencing
hearing. Crayton did not object to the restitution request, thus stipulating to the requested
amount.4 See State v. Leighton, 2000 WI App 156, ¶¶55-56, 237 Wis. 2d 709, 616 N.W.2d 126;
WIS. STAT. § 973.20(13)(c). A challenge to the restitution order therefore would be frivolous
4 Crayton was present in the courtroom at the start of the sentencing proceeding. He began
objecting when the case was called and, as during the trial, he repeatedly asked the circuit court if it was
“executing the consensual contract.” He continued objecting on this basis when the circuit court turned to
the issue of restitution, and he interrupted the State’s presentation of the restitution request with stated
“objections” referencing a contract. After the circuit court ordered restitution in the requested amount,
Crayton, as in prior proceedings, asserted that the court was “executing a consensual contract” and
therefore he “demand[ed] to be paid.” This court concludes that Crayton could not pursue an arguably
meritorious claim that his “objections” were directed at the restitution request. See State v. Jones, 2002
WI App 196, ¶24, 257 Wis. 2d 319, 651 N.W.2d 305 (holding that to preserve an issue for appeal, a
litigant must raise the issue in way that “meaningfully suggest[s]” the basis for the claim and alerts the
circuit court that it is asked to rule on that basis).

No. 2024AP1618-CRNM
13
within the meaning of Anders. See State v. Scherreiks, 153 Wis. 2d 510, 518, 451 N.W.2d 759
(Ct. App. 1989).
Last, we consider whether Crayton could pursue an arguably meritorious claim for
additional sentence credit. The record and supplemental no-merit report show that Crayton
received credit against his sentences for each day that he spent in custody in connection with this
case, from his arrest on March 5, 2018, until his sentencing on March 24, 2023. See WIS. STAT.
§ 973.155; State v. Kontny, 2020 WI App 30, ¶2, 392 Wis. 2d 311, 943 N.W.2d 923. Further
pursuit of this issue would be frivolous within the meaning of Anders.
Our independent review of the record does not disclose any other potential issues
warranting discussion. We conclude that further postconviction or appellate proceedings would
be wholly frivolous within the meaning of Anders and WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32.
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Leonard D. Kachinsky is relieved of any
further representation of Domonique Maurice Crayton. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals