Mr. Wanta wasn't senticed to 22 years, and his competency is in question and most of the story come from him from behind bars.
On November 20, 1995, the court sentenced Wanta to two years in
prison on Counts 3 through 6, to run consecutively, for a total of eight years and
imposed a six-year consecutive probation sentence on Counts 1 and 2. On June 3,
1996, the court ordered Wanta to reimburse the State Public Defender $4,167.64
for the cost of legal representation. The court also ordered Wanta to pay
restitution of $24,900.91, which did not include Wanta’s payment of $14,129
applied to a civil fraud penalty. On January 23, 1998, the court reduced the total
restitution to $14,128.10 because the original amount erroneously included
interest. The court denied Wanta’s postconviction motions, and this appeal
followed.
On June 24, 1994, the court ordered a second competency
evaluation, after Chavez filed a motion asserting that Wanta was unable to assist in
his own defense. At the second competency hearing on July 13, 1994, Dr. David
Mays concluded that Wanta was incompetent. Dr. Mays noted Wanta’s grandiose
and unbelievable claims and doubted whether Wanta could “transcend his
delusional disorder to the extent that he is able to work with his attorney to
provide a plausible defense to present in court.”
On February 3, 1995, the court held a fourth
competency hearing. Prior to the hearing, the court, counsel for the State and
counsel for Wanta all had received a report from Dr. Lee, who had recently
examined Wanta. Both the State and Wanta’s attorney waived the opportunity to
present additional evidence. Wanta continued to maintain he was competent.
Relying on an evaluation letter from Dr. Lee, who was of the opinion that Wanta
could appreciate the charges against him, assist in his own defense, and if found
guilty, understand the consequences, the court found Wanta competent to proceed
to trial, thereby releasing him from commitment to DHSS.
No. 98-0318-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
LEO E. WANTA,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the circuit court for Dane
County: MICHAEL B. TORPHY, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Vergeront, Roggensack and Deininger, JJ.
ROGGENSACK, J. Leo Wanta appeals from his conviction of two
counts of intentionally filing false and fraudulent Wisconsin individual income tax
returns with intent to evade the income tax due in violation of § 71.83(2)(b)1.,
STATS., and four counts of intentionally concealing property upon which levy was
authorized with the intent to evade the collection of taxes in violation of
§ 71.83(2)(b)3. Wanta claims that his conviction should be overturned for the
following reasons: (1) Section 971.14(4)(b), STATS., unconstitutionally requires
proof of incompetence by clear and convincing evidence when an accused claims
he is competent; (2) the evidence does not support his convictions; (3) venue was
improperly maintained in Dane County; (4) the circuit court failed to give the jury
sufficient instructions to afford him a fair trial; (5) he was denied the effective
assistance of counsel; (6) he was denied counsel of his choice; and (7) he has paid
the amount owed. We conclude that no appealable error was committed and
therefore, we affirm.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, we conclude that Wanta’s convictions were
based on constitutional statutes, credible evidence, proper performance of defense
counsel and reasonable decisions of the circuit court.
By the Court.—Judgment and orders affirmed.