2008AP1643 State v. Rogers

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Successive appeals

We conclude that the circuit court was correct and that Rogers’s claims are barred. Escalona makes no exception for claims that are simply designated by the movant as “plain error.” As the circuit court noted, to allow such an exception would undercut the basis for Escalona and would allow claimants to circumvent Escalona simply by couching their claims in terms of “plain error.” In addition, we can see no basis for simply allowing successive postconviction motions alleging “plain error”—or, for that matter, any other type of error—without some explanation as to why the claimant was unable to raise those claims in earlier proceedings. Here, Rogers makes no attempt, either in his postconviction motion or in his briefs on appeal, to articulate any reason for his inability to raise these “plain error” claims in his earlier postconviction or appellate proceedings. Consequently, his motion was procedurally barred by Escalona. Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published.

2008AP1643 State v. Rogers

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Wagner, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Plaintiff: Remington, Christine A., Madison; for Defendant: pro se
Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Full Text