COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

 

November 22, 2011

 

A. John Voelker

Acting 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. 

2010AP2560

Cir. Ct. No.  2002CF6126

STATE OF WISCONSIN 

IN COURT OF APPEALS

 

DISTRICT I

 

 

 

 

State of Wisconsin,

 

                        Plaintiff-Respondent,

 

            v.

 

James A. Graham,

 

                        Defendant-Appellant.

 

 

 

            APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:  jean a. dImotto, Judge.  Affirmed. 

            Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.

1        PER CURIAM.    James A. Graham, pro se, appeals the circuit court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2009-10).[1]  He also appeals an order denying his motion for reconsideration.  He argues that his convictions should be vacated because he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  We affirm.

2        “[A]ny claim that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a previous Wis. Stat. § 974.06 … postconviction motion is barred from being raised in a subsequent § 974.06 postconviction motion, absent a sufficient reason.”  State v. Lo, 2003 WI 107, ¶2, 264 Wis. 2d 1, 665 N.W.2d 756; see also State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994).  Graham was convicted in 2003 of one count of attempted armed robbery and one count of armed robbery, both with use of a dangerous weapon.  Graham’s current arguments are barred by Escalona-Naranjo and its progeny unless Graham presents a sufficient reason for failing to previously raise them, which he has not done.  Because Graham’s claims are subject to the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo, we affirm the circuit court’s orders denying Graham’s motions.

            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            This opinion will not be published.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 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.