State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Barbaro Escalona-Naranjo, Defendant-Appellant

Summary

The court held that a defendant may not use a postconviction motion under section 974.06 to raise an ineffective-assistance claim that could have been raised in an earlier postconviction motion or on direct appeal, absent a sufficient reason for the omission. Because Escalona-Naranjo knew of the alleged trial-counsel errors and offered no sufficient reason for not raising them earlier, the court affirmed dismissal of his motion. Justice Abrahamson, dissenting and joined by Chief Justice Heffernan, would have retained the prior rule permitting constitutional claims omitted from direct review to be considered in a later section 974.06 motion.