District I
December 6, 2013
To:
Hon. Jeffrey A. Wagner
Circuit Court Judge
Milwaukee County Courthouse
901 N. 9th St.
Milwaukee, WI 53233
John Barrett
Clerk of Circuit Court
Room 114
821 W. State Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Karen A. Loebel
Asst. District Attorney
821 W. State St.
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Daniel J. O’Brien
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Raymond Collins 63939
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility
P.O. Box 9900
Boscobel, WI 53805-9900
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013AP249 2013AP250 2013AP251 |
State of Wisconsin v. Raymond Collins (L.C. #1979CF4734) State of Wisconsin v. Raymond Collins (L.C. #1979CF4748B, 1979CF4734) State of Wisconsin v. Raymond Collins (L.C. #1979CF4751, 1979CF4734) State of Wisconsin v. Raymond Collins (L.C. #1979CF4752, 1979CF4734) |
|
|
|
|
Before Fine, Kessler and Brennan, JJ.
Raymond Collins, pro se, appeals circuit court orders denying his motions for
postconviction relief brought pursuant to Wis.
Stat. § 974.06 (2011-12).[1] Based on our review
of the briefs, we conclude at conference that these matters are appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21. We affirm.
An appellant’s brief should contain an argument that sets forth the contentions of the appellant, including the reasons on which the argument is based, with citations to authority and the parts of the record on which the appellant relies. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(e). An appellant’s brief should also contain a table of contents, a table of references, and a statement of issues presented for review and how the circuit court decided them. Rule 809.19(1)(a) and (b). Appellants who are proceeding pro se “must satisfy all procedural requirements, unless those requirements are waived by the court.” Waushara Cnty. v. Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 452, 480 N.W.2d 16 (1992). “The right to self-representation is not a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Id. (quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted).
¶1 The arguments presented in Collins’s brief do not clearly set
forth the legal grounds on which he seeks relief and provide no citations to
the parts of the record on which he relies.
His brief does not have a table of contents or a table of references
and, although there is a section in his document that is entitled issues
presented, Collins does not cogently explain what the issues are or how the
circuit court decided them. Not only has
Collins failed to comply with our briefing rules, his arguments are conclusory
and largely incomprehensible. We will
not review issues that are inadequately briefed. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627,
647, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (We will not address issues raised by an
appellant where a brief “is so
lacking in organization and substance that for us to decide [the] issues, we would first have to develop them.”). Therefore, we summarily affirm the circuit court’s orders.
IT IS ORDERED that the orders of the circuit court are summarily affirmed. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals