2010AP296 State v. Kleitzien

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Successive appeals

There is no exception to the Escalona-Naranjo rule for postconviction discovery motions.

“There is no provision in the relevant statutes or case law that exempts postconviction discovery motions from this rule. Kletzien claims that O’Brien, which was decided after Escalona-Naranjo, implicitly authorizes the bifurcated postconviction procedure he seeks to have us implement; however, this is simply not the case. At no time does O’Brien even hint at anything akin to a bifurcated procedure involving postconviction discovery motions. Id. at 303-30. Moreover, when our supreme court affirmed Escalona-Naranjo several years after O’Brien was decided in State v. Lo, 2003 WI 107, ¶¶44-49, 264 Wis. 2d 1, 665 N.W.2d 756, it at no point made any exception for postconviction discovery motions. Instead, it held: All claims of error that a criminal defendant can bring should be consolidated into one motion or appeal, and claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a previous § 974.06 motion are barred from being raised in a subsequent § 974.06 postconviction motion absent a showing of a sufficient reason for why the claims were not raised on direct appeal or in a previous § 974.06 motion. Lo, ¶44 (capitalization and emphasis added; emphasis omitted).”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP296 State v. Kleitzien

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Wagner, Conen, JJ., Curley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Rebholz, James A., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; St. John, Rebecca Rapp, Milwaukee

Full Text