COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 18, 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. James A. Addison, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Brennan, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. James
A. Addison appeals from an order denying his Wis.
Stat. § 974.06 (2007-08)[1]
postconviction motion. The trial court
denied Addison’s motion as procedurally barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo,
185
¶2 In 2000,
¶3
¶4 On September 22, 2008,
¶5 Wisconsin Stat. § 974.06(5)
and Escalona-Naranjo require a defendant to raise all grounds for
postconviction relief in his or her original motion or appeal. The reason for this is that we need finality
in our litigation. Escalona-Naranjo,
185
when a defendant’s postconviction issues have been addressed by the no merit procedure under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32, the defendant may not thereafter again raise those issues or other issues that could have been raised in the previous motion, absent the defendant demonstrating a sufficient reason for failing to raise those issues previously.
State v. Tillman,
2005 WI App 71, ¶19, 281
¶6 The procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo “is not an ironclad
rule” and in considering whether to apply it when the prior appeal was taken
under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32, we
“pay close attention to whether the no merit procedures were in fact
followed.” Tillman, 281
¶7 With those standards in mind, we turn to
¶8 At sentencing, the victim’s mother, father, and sister spoke about the impact of their son’s death. Love’s mother described her son as “fun loving, caring, respectful … [and] [h]ard working.” Love’s father called his son “a fine human being.” Love’s sister described Love as “like the peacemaker of our family .… He hated to see us argue.”
¶9 In his postconviction motion, Addison contended that his
attorney should have introduced evidence of Love’s criminal record, which
¶10 In the response that
¶11 Whether Addison’s trial attorney was ineffective for not
adequately preserving a self-defense argument was considered in
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 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] According
to the criminal complaint, Addison and another man, Terry Nash, were involved
in an ongoing dispute. A confrontation
took place, and Love, who had been with Nash, “got between” Addison and
Nash. Love was killed when
[3]
The facts of the instant cause of action disclose that: (1) Addison was at home, (2) he noticed that his car had been moved my [sic] someone from in front of his home, (3) fearing something suspicious, he retrieved his handgun and went outside where he observed his car down the road, (4) he moved his car back in front of his house, (5) upon getting out of the car, another car had pulled in front of him and four black males got out of the car and started making threatening gestures and acts in [an] attempt to retrieve something from their waist belt as they were moving toward him, and (6) fearing for his life, he reached and obtained his handgun from his pocket and started shooting.
[4] We recognize that the supreme court has granted review in State v. Allen, No. 2007AP795, a case raising the following issues, according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Table of Pending Cases:
Where a defendant fails to raise a potential claim in response to a no-merit report, what additional showing, if any, is necessary to constitute “sufficient reason” authorizing that defendant to raise the claim in a subsequent motion under Wis. Stat. § 974.06?
[and]
Does requiring a defendant to respond to a no-merit report with arguable claims that were overlooked by appointed counsel and barring the defendant from ever raising any claim not so raised, conflict with the right to counsel on direct appeal?
Because we conclude that