COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 4, 2007 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eric D. Woods, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from orders of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Eric D. Woods appeals, pro se, from an order denying his third
postconviction motion, and from an order denying his related motion for
reconsideration. The circuit court
concluded that Woods’s claims are barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo,
185
Background
¶2 Woods pled guilty in January 2002, to one count of burglary as party to a crime. See Wis. Stat. §§ 943.10(1)(a), 939.05 (1999-2000). The circuit court imposed a ten-year term of imprisonment, bifurcated as five years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision. The court stayed the sentence and placed Woods on probation for five years. Woods did not appeal.
¶3 The Department of Corrections revoked Woods’s probation in August 2003, and ordered him imprisoned. In April 2005, Woods filed his first postconviction motion, seeking sentence modification on the grounds that his diagnosis of schizophrenia, coupled with his other mental health disorders, constituted a new factor. The circuit court denied relief and Woods did not appeal.
¶4 In October 2005, Woods filed his second postconviction motion. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2003-04), he sought a new trial on the grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective. Alternatively, he renewed his request for sentence modification. The circuit court denied the motion and Woods did not appeal.
¶5 In October 2006, Woods initiated the instant litigation by
filing his third postconviction motion.
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 974.06,
he moved to withdraw his guilty plea on multiple grounds, or, in the
alternative, to modify his sentence. The
circuit court held that Woods was required to raise all grounds for
postconviction relief in his original postconviction motion or assert a
sufficient reason for failing to do so. See Escalona-Naranjo, 185
¶6 Woods moved for reconsideration. He contended both that he was incompetent in earlier postconviction proceedings and that he had newly-discovered evidence, and that either was a sufficient reason to relieve him from the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo. The circuit court rejected Woods’s contentions. It found nothing in the record supporting Woods’s assertion that he was incompetent at any time subsequent to his plea and sentencing. It further found that Woods’s newly-discovered evidence claim had been asserted in support of a prior postconviction motion. The court therefore denied Woods’s motion for reconsideration and this appeal followed.
Discussion
¶7 “We need finality in our litigation.”
¶8 Incompetency
during postconviction proceedings may be a sufficient reason to permit a
subsequent postconviction motion.
¶9 Debra
A.E. does not permit Woods to pursue his current motion because the
circuit court found no reason to doubt Woods’s competency at the time of his
earlier postconviction litigation.
Whether there is a reason to doubt competency is generally a question of
fact for the circuit court, and we will uphold the court’s finding unless it is
clearly erroneous.
¶10 The record
supports the circuit court’s finding.
While the treatment notes and reports filed in support of Woods’s
motions reflect that he has received various diagnoses for mental health
disorders since his conviction, a diagnosis of mental illness is not a
categorical reason to doubt competency.
¶11 Psychiatric
reports prepared just before and just after Woods submitted his first
postconviction motion in April 2005, describe Woods as “alert and oriented.” They reflect diagnoses of posttraumatic
stress disorder, polysubstance dependence, and borderline personality
disorder. Neither these reports nor
other materials in the record documenting Woods’s treatment after his
conviction reflect a reason to doubt his competency during postconviction
proceedings. The circuit court’s
conclusion that Woods failed to make a showing of incompetency during the time
following his plea and sentencing is not clearly erroneous.
¶12 We further agree
with the circuit court’s determination that Woods’s third postconviction motion
is not based on newly discovered evidence.
Woods’s evidence consists of correspondence from his mother, one of the
two complaining witnesses in the case, recanting some of her allegations. Woods filed a previous postconviction motion
seeking relief on the basis of recantations from the two complaining
witnesses. “To prevail on a claim of
newly discovered evidence, a defendant must first prove by clear and convincing
evidence that … ‘the evidence is not merely cumulative.’” State v. Love, 2005 WI 116, ¶43, 284
By the Court.—Orders affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5. (2005-06).