State v. Antonio Devonte Jackson

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT I
November 9, 2021
To:
Hon. Mark A. Sanders
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
John Barrett
Clerk of Circuit Court
Milwaukee County
Electronic notice
John D. Flynn
Electronic Notice
Donald V. Latorraca
Electronic Notice
Antonio Devonte Jackson 526222
Stanley Correctional Inst.
100 Corrections Dr.
Stanley, WI 54768
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following order:
2021AP368
2021AP369
State of Wisconsin v. Antonio D. Jackson
(L.C. # 2014CF5375)
State of Wisconsin v. Antonio D. Jackson
(L.C. # 2015CF4177)
Before Donald, P.J., Dugan and White, JJ.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Antonio Devonte Jackson, pro se, appeals the circuit court’s orders denying his
postconviction motion as well as for reconsideration brought pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 974.06
(2019-20).1 He argues: (1) the police conducted a post-arrest lineup that violated his Sixth
Amendment right to counsel and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process; and (2) he
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.

Nos. 2021AP368
2021AP369
2
received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his counsel did not move to suppress the
identification and did not investigate his alibi. After reviewing the briefs and record, we
conclude at conference that summary disposition is appropriate. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
Upon review, we affirm.2
Jackson pled guilty to armed robbery, as a party to a crime, felony bail jumping, and
misdemeanor resisting or obstructing an officer. The circuit court sentenced Jackson to an
aggregate term of fifteen years of initial confinement and fourteen years of extended supervision.
Jackson’s appointed appellate counsel filed no-merit appeals. Jackson responded to the
no-merit report, arguing that: (1) he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial
counsel because his counsel did not inform him about a read-in charge when he signed the plea
questionnaire; (2) he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his
counsel did not have a trial strategy, did not inform him about the motions he could file, and
manipulated him into entering a plea; (3) he should be resentenced because inaccurate
information was presented to the sentencing court; and (4) the sentencing court did not
adequately consider his eligibility for the Challenge Incarceration Program and the Substance
Abuse Program. After independently reviewing the records for error as mandated by Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we affirmed the judgments of conviction.
2 The circuit court entered identical orders addressing Jackson’s cases, which were considered
together in the circuit court and on direct appeal.

Nos. 2021AP368
2021AP369
3
Jackson then filed the current postconviction motion. The circuit court denied Jackson’s
motion without a hearing. Jackson moved for reconsideration, which the circuit court also
denied. This appeal follows.
We agree with the circuit court that Jackson’s arguments are procedurally barred.
Escalona-Naranjo mandates that a person “raise all grounds regarding postconviction relief in
his or her original, supplemental or amended motion” unless the person provides a sufficient
reason for failing to do so. Id., 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). “[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 Wis. 2d 1, 665 N.W.2d
756 (footnote omitted). Courts will not consider the merits of claims that are procedurally barred
by Escalona-Naranjo. Id., 185 Wis. 2d at 185. Jackson has not provided any reason, let alone a
sufficient reason, for failing to previously raise his current arguments. Therefore, Jackson’s
claims are procedurally barred.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the orders of the circuit court are summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals