State v. Charles London Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND FILED
January 12, 2010
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.
David R. Schanker
Clerk of Court of Appeals
Appeal Nos.
NOTICE
Cir. Ct. Nos. 1996CF964496
1996CF964555
2009AP681-CR
2009AP682-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN
IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
CHARLES LONDON WILLIAMS,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
KEVIN E. MARTENS, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Brennan, JJ.
¶1
PER CURIAM.
Charles London Williams, pro se, appeals from an
order denying his motion to modify his sentence. He argues that he was sentenced
based on inaccurate information. We affirm.
Nos. 2009AP681-CR
2009AP682-CR
¶2
Williams contends that he was sentenced based on inaccurate
information because the circuit court thought he had been released on parole in a
prior case when he committed this crime, but in fact he had been released because
he had reached his mandatory release date.
Williams’ claim is barred.
A
defendant must raise all grounds for postconviction relief in his or her first
postconviction motion and/or direct appeal. See State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185
Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994); WIS. STAT. § 974.06(4) (2007-08).1
This promotes “finality in our litigation.” Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d at 185.
Williams has already filed multiple motions and appeals, but has not previously
raised this argument. Since he could have raised it previously, but did not, he is
barred from raising it now under Escalona.
¶3
Williams attempts to circumvent the Escalona bar by arguing that
his claim is premised on new information. A motion for sentence modification
based on a “new factor” can be made at any time. State v. Noll, 2002 WI App
273, ¶12, 258 Wis. 2d 573, 653 N.W.2d 895. Williams’ attempt fails because the
information to which he points is not new. He has known about it since the day of
sentencing. A motion for sentence modification based on a “new factor” does not
lie in these circumstances.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.
See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)5.
1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise
noted.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
