Carroll was charged with second-degree sexual assault; he ultimately took a deal and pleaded to fourth-degree. The circuit court required him to register as a sex offender for 15 years after the end of his supervision. The court of appeals rejects Carroll’s claims that his counsel’s deficiencies led to the plea, and that new factors justified modifying his sentence to remove the registration requirement.
As to the registration, Carroll says his age and his medical conditions are new factors. The court of appeals disagrees, saying both were made known to the court at the time of sentencing. (¶11).
As to the IAC claim, Carroll says his lawyer didn’t adequately prepare for trial and also failed to retain an expert. The court of appeals again disagrees, saying counsel explained his actions, that the circuit court found him credible, and that the actions were reasonable. (¶¶17-18). The court adds that there was no prejudice; the circuit court found incredible Carroll’s testimony that he would have gone to trial had counsel acted differently. (¶19).