Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Prisoner’s 10th appeal rejected by court

By: Jonathan Anderson//November 28, 2012//

Prisoner’s 10th appeal rejected by court

By: Jonathan Anderson//November 28, 2012//

Listen to this article
Charles Rogers

In January, for the 10th time, Waupun Correctional Institution inmate Charles Rogers appealed his conviction. This week, for the 10th time, a court rejected his appeal.

A three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge’s decision to dismiss a habeas corpus petition and motion for reconsideration that Rogers filed pro se in 2011. Tuesday’s decision marks the 10th time that a state appellate court has reviewed, and denied, Rogers’ appeals.

Rogers has been filing appeals since a jury convicted him in 1989 of first-degree intentional homicide and battery. His claims have ranged from police misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct, to allegations of newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He’s lost them all.

In Rogers’ eighth appeal, the state Court of Appeals warned him to stop seeking review of issues that have already been decided.

“This case has been litigated repeatedly,” the court wrote in 2009. “We will not grant a petition for a writ to circumvent an appeal that has now become final, or to continue to re-litigate a matter that has been litigated at least six times.”

The appeals court judges reiterated that message Tuesday, writing: “Rogers’ repetitive litigation imposes an unnecessary burden on both the judicial system and the attorney who must address his motions.”

That attorney, Nancy Noet, an assistant attorney general, wrote in an appellate brief that Rogers’ repetitive motions “waste judicial and other legal resources.”

In her brief, Noet asked the Court of Appeals to restrict the filings it would accept from Rogers unless they meet certain conditions, such as a showing that the issues being appealed have not been previously adjudicated.

The Court of Appeals adopted those restrictions, and added: “[I]f this court determines that Rogers states no claim, defense, or appeal upon which relief may be granted, we will refuse to accept the filing.”


What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

Case Digests

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests