Opinion
No. 2010AP001711.
Opinion Filed: May 17, 2011.
APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: CARL ASHLEY, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Fine, Kessler and Brennan, JJ.
¶ 1 David Allen Ziegler, pro se, appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2009-10). He also appeals an order denying his motion for reconsideration. He argues that his sentence should be modified. We conclude Ziegler's claim is barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo , 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Therefore, we affirm.
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 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 (footnote omitted); Escalona-Naranjo , 185 Wis. 2d at 181-82. "[D]ue process for a convicted defendant permits him or her a single appeal of that conviction and a single opportunity to raise claims of error." State ex rel. Macemon v. Christie , 216 Wis. 2d 337, 343, 576 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998). "Successive, and often reformulated, claims clog the court system and waste judicial resources." Id.
¶ 3 After his conviction in 1998 on drug charges, Ziegler filed a direct appeal. We affirmed the judgment of conviction. After his direct appeal, Ziegler filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court construed as a postconviction motion under WIS. STAT. § 974.06. The circuit court denied the motion. Ziegler appealed and we affirmed the denial. Ziegler then filed another § 974.06 motion in the circuit court, which was denied. This appeal is taken from that order.
¶ 4 Ziegler's current claims are barred under Escalona-Naranjo because he did not raise them in his prior postconviction motions and appeals to this court, and he has not alleged a sufficient reason for failing to previously raise these issues. As so succinctly stated by our supreme court in Escalona-Naranjo , "[w]e need finality in our litigation." Id. , 185 Wis. 2d at 185. Therefore, we conclude that Ziegler is subject to the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo and its progeny.
By the Court. — Orders affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.