Legal Opinion

State v. Mikulance

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided March 15, 2006No. 2005AP1120, 2005AP1121Published

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, J.

¶ 1. In this appeal from orders dismissing his most recent postconviction motion, Thomas A. Mikulance wrongly attempts to use Wxs. Stat. § 973.13 (2003-04) 1 as a vehicle to make an end-run around the procedural bar to successive postconviction motions articulated in Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4) and State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Section 973.13, as it pertains to sentencing a repeat offender, applies only where the defendant files a motion alleging that the State has failed to prove the prior conviction necessary to sustain the habitual criminal status (by…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. Escalona-NaranjoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. LoWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Garcia v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State v. SpaethWisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. FlowersCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1998

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API