334 Wis.2d 809, 800 N.W.2d 957
No. 2010AP001711.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I.
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.
PER CURIAM.
¶ 1 David Allen Ziegler, pro se, appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2009-10).[1] 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.
¶ 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 o 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 underEscalona-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This opinion will not be published.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.