|
2006AP3052 State v. Claudio
Criminal Procedure
Successive appeals
Hipolito Claudio appeals from an order summarily denying his postconviction motion. Claudio alleges that his appellate counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to challenge the effectiveness of his trial counsel in three respects is a sufficient reason to overcome the procedural bar of State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185-86, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) and State v. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, ¶¶25-27, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 N.W.2d 574.[1] We conclude that because Claudio failed to allege a sufficient reason for not identifying these issues in his no-merit response, he has not overcome Tillman's procedural bar. Therefore, we affirm. This opinion will not be published.
2006AP3052 State v. Claudio
Dist I, Milwaukee County, Konkol, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys: For Appellant: Claudio, Hipolito, pro se; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Remington, Christine A., Madison
Case Details
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
