News : Judge denies appeal of convicted killer

A Crandon man convicted of intentionally shooting and killing his neighbor Richard Miskoviak and Crandon police officer Todd Stamper in July 2000 will not be able to withdraw his plea.

Craig Steinagel and his defense attorney, Melinda Lueschow, argued during a motion hearing Tuesday, October 23 that Steinagel should be allowed to withdraw his plea because defense counsel Charles O'Neill did not fully explain the consequences of pleading no contest to the charges.

Steinagel also argued that he did not understand much of what was going on during meetings with his attorney and court hearings, and that O'Neill failed to comply when he was asked to keep investigating the case.

Steinagel, who has a severe hearing impairment which also effects his ability to speak, required real-time reporting devices in the form of computers to allow him to read the statements of both his attorney, district attorney Leon Stenz and Judge Glenn Hartley, and understand the court proceedings.

During the course of the motion hearing Steinagel testified that O'Neill met with him only four to six times for approximately 30 to 45 minutes. He also contended that he did not understand that when he pled no contest he would not have a trial, and that throughout the course of his many court appearances, as well as his meetings with O'Neill, he did not understand all that was happening and O'Neill did not help him to understand.

However, during cross examination, when Stenz asked Steinagel if he had met with O'Neill before every court hearing as well as several times in jail, Steinagel admitted he had. While Steinagel contended that he had trouble reading the computer screen during court hearings because of problems with his eyes, he admitted that he never informed the judge he had a problem.

Stenz also asked Steinagel if the way he was communicating with Lueschow, a combination of notes and lip-reading, was the way he communicated with O'Neill during his hearings. Steinagel answered in the affirmative, to which Stenz pointed out that he seemed to have no problem communicating with his current attorney.

O'Neill testified that the court had “bent over backwards” trying to ensure that Steinagel was able to understand all that was happening, offering several sign language interpreters as well as real-time reporting devices for Steinagel to utilize. He also stated that he had met with Steinagel between a dozen and two dozen times for sometimes up to two-and-a-half hours at a time while the case was ongoing. O'Neill also said that he would repeatedly ask Steinagel if he understood what was being said, to which Steinagel would answer in the affirmative (occasionally after some explanation).

Finally, when O'Neill was questioned about Steinagel's requests to investigate further, O'Neill stated that Steinagel's disputes with the police reports dealt with the time and sequence of events, not whether the events occurred and so he did not feel further investigation was necessary.

Judge Glenn Hartley agreed that it appeared Steinagel understood the consequences of his actions regarding his plea and that he had granted leeway every way he could to ensure Steinagel's understanding.

Hartley also there was nothing to indicate that more meetings would have affected the outcome of the case and that the state had an extremely strong case.

“I flatly don't accept that he didn't understand,” Hartley said, as he denied the defense's motion for post-conviction relief.