The $6,000 Refund

Ryan Thornton has a check. He also has the communications to go with it. The attorney he hired to file his appeal — Justin Singleton — told Thornton, repeatedly, from December 11, 2019 through January 9, 2023, that he was working on the appeal. He was not. On January 9, 2023, Singleton abandoned the representation and refunded Thornton's entire unused $6,000 retainer. Thornton has the check. Thornton has the messages.

By the time Singleton abandoned him, the direct-appeal deadline in Thornton's case — State v. Thornton, 2019CF397, out of Racine County — had long since passed. The underlying case was a disorderly conduct charge from 2018 (18CM830) that Thornton fought because, he says, his ex-girlfriend fabricated her report more than two months after the alleged incident, largely in pursuit of a restitution claim. At trial, the judge refused to let Thornton present his theory of self-defense or testify to it himself. That refusal, Thornton argues, is reversible under settled law: McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) holds that a defendant has the right to insist on his defense, and Stever (2010) and Graves (D.C. 2021) address the same principle. None of it has ever been reviewed on the merits, because the attorney he paid to get it reviewed did not review it.

The Case That Isn't Really About Him Anymore

That is where the story should have stayed: a man with a meritorious issue, a lawyer who abandoned him, and a state court system deciding what to do about it. It did not stay there.

On July 14, 2026, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued its opinion in 2026AP1079 — Thornton's habeas corpus case. Thornton says the opinion misstates his account of what happened. The more important part is what the State of Wisconsin is trying to do with the opinion. According to Thornton, the state is using his case to argue that Wisconsin should adopt the federal "in custody" standard for habeas corpus — a doctrinal change that would mean Wisconsin habeas relief is unavailable to anyone whose direct custody has ended, even if they continue to suffer what other states call "collateral consequences" of their conviction.

Under current Wisconsin practice, habeas can reach beyond the narrow federal custody rule. Under the standard the state is now proposing in Thornton's case, it could not. And once the court accepts the state's framing in one case, it becomes the rule for every case after it.

Even more striking, Thornton says the state has conceded he has "sufficiently alleged ineffective counsel" and has agreed he should receive a hearing — a position normally fatal to the state's defense. The state appears willing to give Thornton the hearing because his case, win or lose, gives the court the vehicle it needs to change the underlying habeas law. He is not the point. The rule is the point.

What Other States Do Differently

Thornton's brief — and the amicus effort he is now seeking support for — compares Wisconsin to the states that have already dealt with this. Texas, Georgia, Washington, and New York all maintain post-conviction remedies that reach past the strict federal custody rule, expressly to cover people whose direct sentences ended but whose convictions continue to harm them. At the federal level, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 — the All Writs Act — allows coram nobis relief for fundamental legal errors when no other avenue remains. Those jurisdictions recognize what Wisconsin is now being asked to ignore: a conviction does not stop mattering just because the sentence is over.

Thornton's case is the illustration. His disorderly conduct conviction, if it stands unreviewed, continues to carry collateral consequences for him. The state's proposed rule would make those consequences unaddressable in Wisconsin unless the petitioner is literally behind bars or on supervision when they file.

The Same Facts Already Won Elsewhere

Thornton points explicitly to State v. Sutton, 2012 WI 23, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case covering the same doctrinal territory — and argues the Court of Appeals in 2026AP1079 is attempting to dodge Sutton by declining to review his Motion for Reconsideration. If he is right, the appellate court is doing something more dangerous than making new law: it is making new law by refusing to apply the state's own controlling precedent.

The Machinery the State Is Using

Step back and look at what the system has put in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2026AP1079: a defendant whose attorney lied to him for three years; whose case has never been reviewed on the merits; whose conceded ineffective-assistance claim entitles him, by the state's own agreement, to a hearing; and whose habeas case the state is explicitly trying to use as the vehicle to shrink habeas law statewide. That is not a random fact pattern. It is a chosen one. When the state wants to roll back a procedural protection, it does not pick a case where the petitioner is sympathetic and the underlying facts are clean. It picks a case like Thornton's: an unappealing minor charge, a pro se litigant, a messy record, and just enough procedural unfairness that the court can claim it is "balancing" interests while it guts them.

Thornton is not an attorney. He has an HP M725 printer and has already filed two certiorari petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court on his own, with self-made certiorari booklets. He intends to file a Petition for Review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court and, if necessary, a third cert petition. He is actively looking for amicus support from organizations that understand what is at stake in 2026AP1079 — and what will be lost if Wisconsin adopts the federal custody rule for habeas.

Anyone who does should read the opinion.

A Note on Sources

This article is based on Ryan Thornton's detailed submissions to The Ethics Reporter, including his case history, his account of Justin Singleton's representation and abandonment, the $6,000 retainer refund he describes, the July 14, 2026 opinion in 2026AP1079, and the cited authorities (McCoy v. Louisiana, Stever, Graves, State v. Sutton, 28 U.S.C. § 1651). The Ethics Reporter has not independently reviewed the Wisconsin court record or the full 2026AP1079 opinion, which is publicly available through the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Singleton and the Wisconsin Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment.

The Ethics Reporter is an independent legal accountability publication. We rely entirely on reader donations to fund this work. If this reporting matters to you, please consider supporting us at theethicsreporter.com/donate. Even $1 keeps the lights on. Thank you.