COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 9, 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 No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ezra O. Sanders, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Ezra O. Sanders, pro se, appeals an order denying his
motion to modify his sentence. He
challenges the DNA surcharge imposed by the circuit court, arguing that the
court failed to adequately explain why it was imposed.
¶2 As we have explained in other cases, when moving to vacate a
DNA surcharge, a defendant is moving to modify his or her sentence. A motion to modify a sentence must be brought
within ninety days of sentencing under Wis.
Stat. § 973.19(1)(a), or within appellate time limits set forth in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.30.
¶3 Sanders contends that he should be allowed to obtain relief
because his motion for sentence modification is based on a “new factor,” the
recently decided Cherry case. See Cherry,
2008 WI App 80, ¶10, 312
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.