Opinion
Nos. 2014AP794 2014AP795 2014AP796 2014AP797.
04-21-2015
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Michael R. SEEHAFER, Defendant–Appellant.
Opinion
¶ 1
Michael Seehafer appeals an order denying his Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion to vacate four drunk driving convictions. He contends the convictions in Circuit Court Nos.1999CT656, 2002CF144, 2005CF371 and 2007CF699 are invalid for various reasons. We affirm the circuit court's order denying the motion.
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2013–14 version unless otherwise noted.
--------
¶ 2 As to the first three convictions, the circuit court denied Seehafer's motion because Seehafer admitted he was no longer in custody under those sentences. Being in custody is a prerequisite for a motion for postconviction relief under Wis. Stat. § 974.06. State v. Bell, 122 Wis.2d 427, 431, 362 N.W.2d 443 (1984). Seehafer does not address the circuit court's rationale for denying relief under § 974.06, in effect conceding the validity of the court's decision. See Schlieper v. DNR, 188 Wis.2d 318, 322, 525 N.W.2d 99 (Ct.App.1994).
¶ 3 As to the motion regarding Circuit Court No. 2007CF699, the circuit court denied the motion because it is procedurally barred by the rule against successive postconviction motions set out in State v. Escalona–Naranjo, 185 Wis.2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Seehafer filed a previous appeal and numerous postconviction motions challenging that conviction. Escalona–Naranjo prohibits successive postconviction motions as to all issues that were raised, or could have been raised, in earlier motions. Id. Seehafer offers no explanation for his failure to have raised the present issues in his earlier motions, and again does not address the circuit court's rationale for denying the present motion. See Schlieper, 188 Wis.2d at 322, 525 N.W.2d 99.
Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule E 809.23(1)(b)5.