State v. Mafayette Fields

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. Stephanie Rothstein
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
John Barrett
Clerk of Circuit Court
Milwaukee County
Electronic Notice
John D. Flynn
Electronic Notice
Sara Lynn Shaeffer
Electronic Notice
Mafayette Fields 371377
Oakhill Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 938
Oregon, WI 53575-0938
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2020AP1789-CR State of Wisconsin v. Mafayette Fields (L.C. # 2005CF2117)
Before Brash, C.J., Donald, P.J., and Dugan, J.
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).
Mafayette Fields, pro se, appeals the circuit court’s order denying his postconviction
motion brought pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2019-20).1 He also appeals the circuit court’s
order denying his motion to reconsider. Fields argues that he is entitled to sentence modification
because the circuit court relied on inaccurate information when it sentenced him. He also
contends that he is entitled to discretionary reversal of his conviction in the interests of justice
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.

No. 2020AP1789-CR
2
pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.35. 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.
Fields pled guilty to one count of first-degree reckless homicide in 2005. Since his
conviction, he has filed several unsuccessful postconviction motions seeking relief from his
conviction.
Fields’s current motion argues that he is entitled to sentence modification because he was
sentenced based on inaccurate information.2 This argument is procedurally barred under State v.
Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). 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. “[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). Fields has not provided any reason, let alone a sufficient
reason, for failing to previously raise this claim. Therefore, he is subject to the procedural bar of
Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d at 185.
2 Fields contends that the circuit court incorrectly stated during sentencing that he violated a
sobriety requirement during his extended supervision and incorrectly stated that the victim was shot in
the hand defending himself.

No. 2020AP1789-CR
3
To the extent that Fields’s attempts to frame his motion for sentence modification as
seeking sentence modification based on a new factor, rather than inaccurate information, we
agree with the circuit court that this allegation does not allege a new factor as defined in State v.
Harbor, 2011 WI 28, ¶40, 333 Wis. 2d 53, 797 N.W.2d 828.
Fields also argues that he is entitled to discretionary reversal of his conviction in the
interests of justice pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.35. Fields did not raise this argument in the
circuit court. Therefore, he may not raise it on appeal. See State v. Rogers, 196 Wis. 2d 817,
826, 539 N.W.2d 897 (Ct. App. 1995) (an appellant may not raise an argument that was not
presented to the circuit court).3
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.
3 Fields moved to stay this appeal on October 18, 2021, explaining that he wanted “to exhaust a
remedy in the circuit court based on a mitigating circumstance.” Based on this one-sentence argument,
Fields has not shown good cause to stay this appeal. Therefore, we deny the motion.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals