District III

March 4, 2014�

To:

Hon. Paul J. Lenz

Circuit Court Judge

Eau Claire County Courthouse

721 Oxford Avenue

Eau Claire, WI 54703-5496

Kristina Aschenbrenner

Clerk of Circuit Court

Eau Claire County Courthouse

721 Oxford Avenue

Eau Claire, WI 54703-5496

Gary M. King

District Attorney

721 Oxford Ave

Eau Claire, WI 54703

Eileen W. Pray

Asst. Attorney General

P.O. Box 7857

Madison, WI 53707-7857

Miquel D. Brown 319816

Jackson Corr. Inst.

P.O. Box 233

Black River Falls, WI 54615-0233

You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:�

2013AP1106

State of Wisconsin v. Miquel D. Brown (L.C. # 2002CF59)

Before Hoover, P.J., Mangerson and Gundrum, JJ. �

Miquel Brown, pro se, appeals an order denying his Wis. Stat. � 974.06[1] motion for postconviction relief.� Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition.� We reject Brown�s arguments, and summarily affirm the order.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.

In 2005, this court affirmed Brown�s convictions for two counts of delivering cocaine and one count of possessing more than fifteen grams of cocaine with intent to deliver.� State v. Brown, No. 2003AP3257-CR, unpublished slip op. �1 (WI App Feb. 8, 2005). �In doing so, we rejected Brown�s challenge to what he described as a defective amended information.� Specifically, Brown claimed the circuit court erred by allowing the prosecution to amend the information to add the possession charge.� Brown subsequently filed numerous postconviction motions and appeals, each time raising the same issue.���

In October 2012, the circuit court amended the judgment of conviction to correct a clerical error�namely, to correct the statutory citation for Brown�s possession conviction.� Brown subsequently filed the underlying postconviction motion, challenging what he characterized as a �constructive amendment� to the information.� The circuit court summarily denied the motion, and this is now Brown�s sixth appeal claiming the information was improperly amended.

We conclude Brown�s argument is procedurally barred by Wis. Stat. � 974.06(4) and State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994).� Successive motions and appeals are procedurally barred unless the defendant can show a sufficient reason why the newly-alleged errors were not previously raised.� Id. at 185.� Here, Brown provides no legitimate reason why his claim is not procedurally barred.� The trial court�s correction of a clerical error on Brown�s judgment of conviction does not open the door for Brown to again raise an issue that has been previously litigated and rejected by this court on five previous occasions.� A defendant may not relitigate a matter previously litigated, �no matter how artfully the defendant may rephrase the issue.�� See State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990, 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991).�

Upon the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the order is summarily affirmed pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

---

[1]  All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise noted.