COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 12, 2010 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 Nos. |
|
1996CF964555 |
||
STATE OF |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Charles London Williams, pro se, appeals from an order denying his motion to modify his sentence. He argues that he was sentenced based on inaccurate information. We affirm.
¶2 Williams contends that he was sentenced based on inaccurate
information because the circuit court thought he had been released on parole in
a prior case when he committed this crime, but in fact he had been released
because he had reached his mandatory release date. Williams’ claim is barred. A defendant must raise all grounds for
postconviction relief in his or her first postconviction motion and/or direct
appeal.
¶3 Williams attempts to circumvent the Escalona bar by arguing
that his claim is premised on new information.
A motion for sentence modification based on a “new factor” can be made
at any time. State v. Noll, 2002 WI
App 273, ¶12, 258
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.