COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 7, 2009 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. Cletes Mark Crawford, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Kessler and Brennan, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Cletes Mark Crawford, pro se, appeals from an order[1] denying his motion for postconviction relief under Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2007-08).[2] The circuit court denied Crawford’s motion as procedurally barred under State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). We affirm.
¶2 A jury found Crawford guilty of first-degree reckless injury,
first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and endangering safety by reckless
use of a firearm. Crawford
appealed. This court affirmed. State v. Crawford, No.
2005AP2072-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App July 13, 2006). In that direct appeal, Crawford challenged
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict, specifically
pointing out inconsistencies in the testimony of John Weatherspoon and Roslyn
Brown.
¶3 On December 7, 2007, Crawford filed a pro se Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion for postconviction relief. In a long, rambling and disjointed submission, Crawford argued that the State presented perjured testimony at trial; that his constitutional right to confront witnesses was violated when the court limited cross-examination of certain witnesses at the preliminary examination; that his trial attorney did not present a “proper defense” and should have requested the submission of a lesser-included-offense; and that his arrest was illegal. The circuit court denied Crawford’s motion as barred by Escalona-Naranjo. The circuit court also rejected Crawford’s contention that his appellate attorney was ineffective for not signing a certification under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(1)(c), because Crawford’s direct appeal was not a no-merit appeal and, therefore, the certification requirement in Rule 809.32(1)(c) did not apply.
¶4 Crawford appeals, and in another barely comprehensible filing, he renews the arguments he made to the circuit court.
¶5 A defendant cannot raise an argument in a subsequent
postconviction motion that was not raised in a prior postconviction motion
unless there is a sufficient reason for the failure to allege or adequately
raise the issue in the original motion. Escalona-Naranjo,
185
[A] criminal defendant [is] required to consolidate all postconviction claims into his or her original, supplemental, or amended motion. If a criminal defendant fails to raise a constitutional issue that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a prior § 974.06 motion, the constitutional issue may not become the basis for a subsequent § 974.06 motion unless the court ascertains that a sufficient reason exists for the failure either to allege or to adequately raise the issue in the appeal or previous § 974.06 motion.
State v. Lo, 2003 WI 107, ¶31, 264
¶6 Crawford’s complaints about perjured testimony, the nature of his defense, and whether a lesser-included-offense should have been requested are nothing more than continued attacks on the credibility of Weatherspoon and Brown and to the sufficiency of the evidence. Crawford does not offer any reason, let alone a sufficient reason, why his other arguments were not raised in his direct appeal.[3]
¶7 “[D]ue process for a convicted defendant permits him or her a
single appeal of [a] conviction and a single opportunity to raise claims of
error .…” State ex rel. Macemon v.
Christie, 216
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
[1] The order appealed from was entered by the Honorable M. Joseph Donald. The Honorable John Franke presided over Crawford’s trial and sentencing.
[2] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.
[3] We concur with the State’s assessment that Crawford’s complaint that his appellate counsel did not certify a no-merit report is frivolous because Crawford’s direct appeal was not a no-merit appeal.