323 Wis.2d 823, 781 N.W.2d 550
No. 2009AP000681 CR, 2009AP000682 CR.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
January 12, 2010.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: KEVIN E. MARTENS, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Brennan, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
¶ 1 Charles London Williams, pro se, appeals from an order denying his motion to modify his sentence. He argues that he was sentenced based on inaccurate information. We affirm.
¶ 2 Williams contends that he was sentenced based on inaccurate information because the circuit court thought he had been released on parole in a prior case when he committed this crime, but in fact he had been released because he had reached his mandatory release date. Williams’ claim is barred. A defendant must raise all grounds for postconviction relief in his or her first postconviction motion and/or direct appeal See State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994); WIS. STAT. § 974.06(4) (2007-08).[1] This promotes “finality in our litigation.”Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d at 185. Williams has already filed multiple motions and appeals, but has not previously raised this argument. Since he could have raised it previously, but did not, he is barred from raising it now unde Escalona.
¶ 3 Williams attempts to circumvent the Escalona
bar by arguing that his claim is premised on new information. A motion for sentence modification based on a “new factor” can be made at any time. State v. Noll, 2002 WI App 273, ¶ 12, 258 Wis. 2d 573, 653 N.W.2d 895. Williams’ attempt fails because the information to which he points is not new. He has known about it since the day of sentencing. A motion for sentence modification based on a “new factor” does not lie in these circumstances.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.