Opinion
No. 2009AP2886.
Opinion Filed: December 7, 2010.
Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: DANIEL L. KONKOL, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Curley, P.J., Kessler and Brennan, JJ.
¶ 1 Darius Jennings, pro se, appeals the circuit court's order denying his motion for postconviction relief under WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2007-08). He contends that his direct appeal rights should be reinstated and that appellate counsel should be appointed for him because his waiver of counsel during his direct appeal was invalid. We affirm.
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.
¶ 2 "[A]ny claim that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a previous Wis. Stat. § 974.06 . . . postconviction motion is barred from being raised in a subsequent § 974.06 postconviction motion, absent a sufficient reason." State v. Lo, 2003 WI 107, ¶ 2, 264 Wis. 2d 1, 665 N.W.2d 756; State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Jennings was convicted in 1994, pursued a direct appeal pro se after his appointed appellate counsel withdrew, and has filed multiple post-conviction motions under § 974.06 in the sixteen years since his conviction. Jennings did not previously raise this argument in any of those prior proceedings. Jennings contends that the fact that his waiver of counsel was invalid, by itself, constitutes a "sufficient reason" for him to have not previously brought the claim. Regardless of whether his waiver of counsel was valid, Jennings was required to provide a reasonable explanation of why he did not previously raise this argument in the many postconviction motions he has brought since his conviction. Because Jennings has not provided a sufficient reason for this failure, he is barred from raising this argument by Escalona-Naranjo and its progeny.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.