329 Wis.2d 270, 789 N.W.2d 753
No. 2009AP1672-CR.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I.
Opinion Filed: July 7, 2010.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: RICHARD J. SANKOVITZ, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
¶ 1 Anthony Garrison, pro se, appeals an order denying his motion to rescind restitution. The circuit court determined Garrison’s motion was procedurally barred. We agree and affirm the order.
¶ 2 In 2002, Garrison pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to misappropriate personal identifying information as a habitual criminal. A charge of misappropriation of personal identifying information — without the conspiracy element — was dismissed and read in. As part of the sentence, Garrison was ordered to pay restitution totaling approximately $72,245 to companies including Ameritech, Warner Cable, Cellular USA, Dell Computer, and Gateway Computer, to be paid from up to twenty-five percent of Garrison’s prison wages. This amount was, following two motions by Garrison, subsequently amended to approximately $64,063. The amendment was based on a stipulation signed by the State, defense counsel, and Garrison himself.
¶ 3 Garrison did not pursue a direct appeal. In September 2006, he filed a pro se WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2007-08)[1] motion alleging that his plea was involuntary. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing. Garrison appealed and we affirmed. See State v. Garrison, No. 2006AP2630, unpublished slip op. (WI App July 17, 2007).
¶ 4 On June 1, 2009, Garrison filed a “motion to rescind restitution.” He alleged that: (1) the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay restitution to companies rather than the “actual victims” of his crimes; (2) the trial court lacked competency to order restitution; and (3) the court erred when it ordered restitution be paid from Garrison’s prison wages. The court concluded Garrison’s claims were precluded by State v.Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), because they could have been raised at sentencing, during his motions to reduce restitution, or in his prior WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion. Accordingly, the court denied the 2009 motion. Garrison appeals.
¶ 5 Garrison complains the trial court erroneously denied his motion as barred by Escalona because it was brought under WIS. STAT. §806.07(1)(h), not WIS. STAT. § 974.06.[2] However, § 806.07 applies to civil actions and judgments. See State ex rel. Lewandowski v. Callaway, 118 Wis. 2d 165, 172, 346 N.W.2d 457 (1984). Garrison cites no authority to demonstrate that § 806.07 offers a mechanism for relief from a criminal conviction and sentence. It appears that the trial court instead implicitly — and properly — construed Garrison’s motion as a § 974.06
motion.[3] This construction, however, still does not permit relief.
¶ 6 “It is well-settled that a defendant must raise all grounds for relief in his or her original, supplemental or amended motion for postconviction relief.” State v. Fortier, 2006 WI App 11, ¶ 16, 289 Wis. 2d 179, 709 N.W.2d 893; see also WIS. STAT. § 974.06 andEscalona, 185 Wis. 2d at 181. If grounds alleged in the present motion were not raised in a prior motion, they may not form the basis for the present motion absent a “sufficient reason” for the failure to raise those grounds previously. Fortier, 289 Wis. 2d 179, ¶ 16.
¶ 7 Garrison’s claims relating to restitution could have, and should have, been raised previously. There were at least two successful motions to modify restitution; direct appeal from the conviction and sentence could have been sought, and the claims could have been raised in the pro se WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion that Garrison filed in 2005. Garrison does not offer any reason, much less a sufficient reason, for his failure to previously raise the issues currently presented.[4]
By the Court. — Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.