COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 12, 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. Larry Joe Brown, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Wedemeyer[1] and Fine, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Larry Joe Brown, pro se, appeals from an order denying his motion for sentence modification. The circuit court rejected Brown’s contention that a change in parole policy constituted a new factor. Because the circuit court did not err, we affirm.
¶2 In 1983, Brown pled guilty to and was convicted of four counts of first-degree sexual assault and two counts of armed robbery. He was sentenced to four consecutive twenty-year sentences and two concurrent twenty-year sentences. Since then, Brown has litigated six challenges to his conviction or sentence. Among those challenges were two motions in which Brown asserted that a 1988 change in parole policy constituted a new factor that warranted the modification of his sentence. The circuit court denied each motion, and this court affirmed. State v. Brown, No. 1992AP2043-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App Oct. 19, 1993); State v. Brown, No. 1996AP400, unpublished slip op. (WI App Mar. 13, 1998).
¶3 In the motion that underlies this latest appeal, Brown again argued that the 1988 change in parole policy constitutes a new factor and, therefore, he asked the circuit court to modify his sentence. As noted, the circuit court denied Brown’s motion.
¶4 This
appeal is Brown’s third attempt to transform changing parole policy directives
into a new factor. As we have done
previously, we reject Brown’s contention.
An issue previously considered cannot be relitigated, “no matter
how artfully [Brown] may rephrase the issue.”
State v. Witkowski, 163
rejected by this court. See State
v. Delaney, 2006 WI App 37, ¶¶17-21, 289
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5. (2005-06).