State v. Latonia Campbell

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 16, 2021
To:
Hon. Jeffrey A. Wagner
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
John Barrett
Clerk of Circuit Court
Milwaukee County
Electronic Notice
Nicholas DeSantis
Electronic Notice
John D. Flynn
Electronic Notice
Latonia Campbell
308 North St.
Lexington, MS 39095
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2020AP1103 State of Wisconsin v. Latonia Campbell (L.C. # 1998CF2858)
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).
Latonia Campbell, pro se, appeals an order entered on June 25, 2020, denying her motion
seeking postconviction relief from her 1999 criminal conviction. The circuit court denied the
motion as procedurally barred. Upon review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference
that this matter is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2019-20).1
We affirm.
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.

No. 2020AP1103
2
In 1999, Campbell pled guilty to perjury. The circuit court imposed a three-year term of
probation. The circuit court docket reflects that she completed that term and was discharged
from probation effective on November 18, 2002.2 Nearly eighteen years later, on May 12, 2020,
Campbell filed a notice of appeal. We dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction, explaining
that the time for Campbell to appeal the 1999 judgment of conviction lapsed long ago and that
she did not identify any other document from which she could appeal. See State v. Campbell
(Campbell I), No. 2020AP873-CR, unpublished op. and order at 2 (WI App June 4, 2020).
A few weeks after we released our opinion in Campbell I, Campbell filed a
postconviction motion in the circuit court alleging various grounds for postconviction relief. The
circuit court denied the motion, explaining that the time had passed for Campbell to raise
postconviction claims in this matter. She appeals.
Campbell stated in her circuit court submission that she was raising claims “under [WIS.
STAT. §] 808.03.” That statute is not a mechanism under which a convicted person may move
for postconviction relief in the circuit court. Rather, § 808.03 provides an appeal of right from
final judgments and final orders and limits appellate review of interlocutory determinations until
after the entry of a final judgment or final order. See Heaton v. Larsen, 97 Wis. 2d 379, 395,
294 N.W.2d 15 (1980). We may, however, look beyond the label that a pro se litigant applies to
pleadings to determine if he or she is entitled to relief. See bin-Rilla v. Israel, 113 Wis. 2d 514,
2 We may take judicial notice of electronic docket entries available through the Wisconsin
Circuit Court Access Program. See Kirk v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2013 WI App 32, ¶5 n.1, 346
Wis. 2d 635, 829 N.W.2d 522.

No. 2020AP1103
3
521, 335 N.W.2d 384 (1983). If necessary, we may relabel the document and proceed from
there. See id.
In this case, we observe that WIS. STAT. § 974.06 is the avenue for convicted persons to
seek postconviction relief after the time for a direct appeal has passed. See State v. Henley, 2010
WI 97, ¶50, 328 Wis. 2d 544, 787 N.W.2d 350. Indeed, Campbell appears to recognize that she
must proceed under § 974.06, because she begins her appellate submission by describing it as a
“motion brief under § 974.06.” Accordingly, we examine whether Campbell may pursue her
claims under that statute. See bin-Rilla, 113 Wis. 2d at 521.
A convicted person cannot litigate claims under WIS. STAT. § 974.06 unless the person is
“in custody under the sentence he [or she] desires to attack.” See State v. Bell, 122 Wis. 2d 427,
430, 362 N.W.2d 443 (Ct. App. 1984). The circuit court found, however, that Campbell was
discharged from probation long ago, and that she “is not in custody under the sentence of the
court for purposes of proceeding under [§] 974.06.” Accordingly, the circuit court properly
denied her claims.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the circuit court’s order is 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