COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 8, 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. |
|
|||
STATE OF |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Chris Lamar Crittendon, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Fine, Kessler, and Brennan, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Chris Lamar Crittendon, pro se, appeals the circuit court’s order denying his motion for postcommitment relief under Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2007-08).[1] He challenges the circuit court’s exercise of sentencing discretion and contends that he should be granted an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
¶2 Crittendon was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, as a party to a crime, on January 31, 1992. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, consecutive to the sentence he was already serving, with parole eligibility after forty-five years. On August 19, 2009, Crittendon filed a postcommitment motion—one in a long series of motions that he has filed since his commitment—which was denied on September 24, 2009. Crittendon moved for reconsideration. The circuit court denied the motion for reconsideration. This appeal follows.
¶3 “[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
¶4 Since his commitment, Crittendon has had a direct appeal, and
has filed multiple postcommitment motions under Wis. Stat. § 974.06, all of which have been denied. Crittendon contends that he did not
previously raise the current claims because he did not know he had to raise
them. This reason is not sufficient to
excuse not raising these issues for nearly eighteen years. As so succinctly stated by our supreme court
in Escalona-Naranjo,
“[w]e need finality in our litigation.”
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.