COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 5, 2008 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. Jimmie Lee Ellis, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Jimmie Lee Ellis appeals from an order summarily denying his postconviction motion. We conclude that Ellis’s postconviction motion is procedurally barred for his failure to allege a reason for failing to previously raise the issues he now seeks to raise. Therefore, we affirm.
¶2 A jury found Ellis guilty of possessing between five and
fifteen grams of cocaine with intent to deliver as a subsequent drug
offense. The trial court imposed a
twenty-year sentence, comprised of fifteen- and five-year respective periods of
confinement and extended supervision, to run consecutive to any other
sentence. Appellate counsel filed a
no-merit report to which Ellis filed three responses. This court affirmed the judgment of
conviction.
¶3 Ellis has filed six postconviction motions, all of which have
been denied by the trial court. In his
sixth postconviction motion, which is the subject of this appeal, he seeks
relief pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 974.06
(2005-06), alleging a variety of claims.[1] He does not, however, allege why he failed to
raise these claims in his three no-merit responses, or in his five previous
postconviction motions. The trial court
summarily denied his motion as procedurally barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo,
185
¶4 To avoid Escalona’s procedural bar, a
defendant must allege a sufficient reason for
failing to have previously raised all grounds for postconviction relief on
direct appeal or in his original postconviction motion. See Escalona, 185
¶5 Ellis alleged no reason in his
postconviction motion for failing to previously raise these issues.[2] Consequently, his motion is procedurally
barred. See Escalona, 185
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version.
[2] The reason for failing to previously raise these issues must be alleged in the postconviction motion itself to enable the trial court to initially assess the sufficiency of the alleged reason and whether to decide the substantive claim. See Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4).