STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ricky J. FORTIER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2004AP3189-CR
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
December 28, 2005
2006 WI App 11 | 709 N.W.2d 893
Submitted on briefs November 1, 2005.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general, and Sally L. Wellman, assistant attorney general.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Curley, JJ.
¶ 1. CURLEY, J. Ricky J. Fortier appeals from an order denying his motion to modify his sentence under
¶ 2. We conclude that, despite his failure to raise the issue in a response to appellate counsel‘s no-merit report, Fortier is not procedurally barred from raising the issue of a sentence illegally raised upon resentencing, because he had a sufficient reason under
I. BACKGROUND.
¶ 3. On November 6, 1998, the Milwaukee Police Department conducted a search pursuant to a search warrant of Fortier‘s residence at 3888 East High Street in the City of Oak Creek. The search warrant was issued based on an affidavit from a confidential informant. According to the affidavit, the informant had personally observed “an undetermined quantity of marijuana in separate bags and scales” in the residence within the past seventy-two hours, and the informant knew the substance was marijuana because the informant had, among other things, previously made two “controlled buys” of marijuana for law enforcement at a different location. According to the affidavit, the con
¶ 4. Upon entry into Fortier‘s residence, officers observed Fortier trying to flee, but he was detained at a door and searched by a detective. In Fortier‘s shirt pocket, the detective found two bags of marijuana, weighing approximately six grams each, and one bag of cocaine, weighing approximately twenty-six grams. The search of Fortier‘s residence uncovered additional drugs, as well as drug paraphernalia, scales, material used to cook cocaine, and packaging material used to package controlled substances. Laboratory tests later revealed that the total quantities recovered were 22.652 grams of marijuana and 35.657 grams of cocaine.
¶ 5. Fortier was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, cocaine, contrary to
¶ 6. The case proceeded to a jury trial. Fortier testified in his own defense and admitted that the drugs belonged to him, but denied intending to sell them and claimed that they were for personal use only. Investigators with drug enforcement experience testified that the quantity of cocaine found was so large that it was highly unlikely that it was intended for personal use, particularly when combined with the fact that the detectives recovered packaging material commonly
¶ 7. Before sentencing Fortier, consistent with the assistant district attorney‘s earlier statement, the court noted:
The reference to the controlled buys are set forth in the search warrant that was filed in which there was an issue that we discussed about disclosing the informant, but in that search warrant, the basis was that there were controlled buys by that informant out of the home, and the sheer amount of cocaine clearly reflects a sale.
¶ 8. The court sentenced Fortier to: (1) six years’ imprisonment for possession with intent to deliver cocaine; (2) five years’ imprisonment, to be served consecutive to the other sentences, but stayed and replaced by five years’ probation, to be served consecutive to the other sentences, for failure to pay controlled substance tax; and (3) six months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence for the first count, for possession of marijuana. The court also imposed two six-month suspensions of Fortier‘s driver‘s license on counts one and three respectively, to run concurrently, as well as an additional six-month suspension on count two, to run consecutive to the suspensions on counts one and three. Judgment of conviction was entered accordingly.
¶ 9. On March 5, 1999, Fortier filed a notice of his intent to pursue post-dispositional relief. He was ap
¶ 10. On November 17, 1999, a resentencing hearing was held in front of a judge different from the one who originally sentenced Fortier. The new sentences were the same as the original, with the exception of the fact that the court added two new conditions for probation, on the failure to pay controlled substance tax count: a $1,000.00 fine and one-thousand hours of community service (comparable to approximately six months of forty-hour weeks), to be served within four years. The court also changed the suspensions of Fortier‘s driver‘s license from the previously imposed two concurrent six-month suspensions on counts one and three, and the consecutive six-month suspension on count two. The new sentence instead demanded concurrent five-year revocations on all three counts.
¶ 11. On December 6, 1999, Fortier filed a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief. He was appointed new postconviction counsel, who filed a notice
¶ 12. On February 27, 2003, Fortier filed a motion with the trial court asking it to clarify the judgment as to the driver‘s license revocation to state that the two five-year periods would run concurrently, and to have the revocation commence on the date of conviction, rather than following release. The motion was denied.
¶ 13. On October 1, 2004, Fortier filed with the trial court a motion to reduce his sentence to the sentence given at the original sentencing “because the resentencing court gave no reason for increasing the sentence as to count two.” On October 11, 2004, the trial court issued a decision and order denying Fortier‘s motion. The trial court based its decision on State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 181, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), and concluded that Fortier was procedurally barred from pursuing the claim:
Section 974.06(4), Stats. , requires a defendant to raise all grounds for postconviction relief in this original
motion or appeal. Failure to do so precludes a defendant from raising additional issues, including claims of constitutional or jurisdictional violations, in a subsequent motion or appeal where those issues could have been raised previously. Escalona, supra. The defendant could have raised this claim in a response to the no-merit report. His failure to file any response is deemed as a waiver of his current challenge to the terms and conditions of his sentence.
¶ 14. Fortier now appeals the order denying his motion to reduce sentence.
II. ANALYSIS.
¶ 15. Fortier contends that he should not be precluded from raising the issue of a sentence illegally raised upon resentencing, even though he failed to raise it in a response to the no-merit report at the time of the original appeal. We begin by addressing Fortier‘s argument that he should be permitted to raise the sentencing issue, because not to do so is unfair and unreasonable and constitutes a sufficient reason under
¶ 16. It is well-settled that a defendant must raise all grounds for relief in his or her original, supplemental or amended motion for postconviction relief.
¶ 17. It is undisputed that Fortier could have raised the issue he now wishes to raise - whether his sentence was illegally raised when he was resentenced - in a response to his postconviction counsel‘s no-merit report, and it is equally undisputed that Fortier failed to do so since he did not file a response to the no-merit report. The issue thus becomes whether Fortier had a “sufficient reason” for failing to raise the issue.
¶ 18. Because the facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are not in dispute, whether Fortier‘s appeal is procedurally barred by our prior no-merit decision pursuant to Escalona and
¶ 19. In State v. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, ¶ 19, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 N.W.2d 574, this court recently considered the applicability of the procedural bar of
[I]n considering whether to apply the procedural bar of Escalona, in a given case, the court (both trial and appellate) must pay close attention to whether the no merit procedures were in fact followed. In addition, the court must consider whether that procedure, even if followed, carries a sufficient degree of confidence warranting the application of the procedural bar under the particular facts and circumstances of the case.
Tillman, 281 Wis. 2d 157, ¶ 20 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).
¶ 20. The no-merit appeal procedure has its origins in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In Anders, the United States Supreme Court addressed “the extent of the duty of a court-appointed appellate counsel to prosecute a first appeal from a criminal conviction, after that attorney has conscientiously determined that there is no merit to the indigent‘s appeal.” Id. at 739. The Court held that:
[I]f counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably
support the appeal. A copy of counsel‘s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court-not counsel-then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.
Id. at 744 (emphasis added).
¶ 21. In Wisconsin, the no-merit procedure set forth in Anders is codified and explained in
¶ 22. Wilkinson v. Cowan, 231 F.3d 347, 349 (7th Cir. 2000), is an example of a case in which the no merit procedures were not followed. See Tillman, 281 Wis. 2d 157, ¶ 20 n.5. Wilkinson had raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in a pro se postconviction motion, but the issue had been dismissed by the trial court, and Wilkinson had failed to re-raise it in a response to a no-merit report. Wilkinson, 231 F.3d at 349. The court found that the no-merit procedures were not followed because while the clerk of court advised
¶ 23. In this case, it is, as mentioned, undisputed that Fortier was informed by his appellate counsel of his right to file a response to the no-merit report and that Fortier did not file a response. See
The court has reviewed the no merit report and has conducted an independent review of the appellate record. Based upon that review, the court concludes that there would be no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal. We therefore summarily affirm the judgment of conviction....
¶ 24. However, it is now evident that the issue of a sentence illegally increased at sentencing, which was eventually raised by Fortier in a motion to reduce sentence on October 1, 2004, is indeed an issue of arguable merit. The issue was hence overlooked not only by Fortier, but also by his appellate counsel, who filed the no-merit report addressing only the issue of erroneous exercise of sentencing discretion and con
¶ 25. Fortier explains that because the no-merit report did not identify any potential appellate issues, he “did not realize that the enhanced penalties upon resentencing were an appellate issue and did not respond to the no merit report.” He maintains that because “both the appellate attorney and the appellate court had far more training and experience in identifying appellate issues than [him],” it is both “unfair and a miscarriage of justice” to hold that he waived his right to object to the increased sentence.
¶ 26. The State predictably disagrees, and argues that Fortier is procedurally barred under
¶ 27. Had Fortier‘s appellate counsel performed the requisite “conscientious examination” of the case, Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, he would have identified an illegally-raised sentence as a potential appellate issue and would not have filed a no-merit report, asserting that any further appeal would be frivolous. Likewise, because this court failed to identify the existence of an issue of arguable merit, “a full examination” was not conducted. Id. We therefore conclude that the no-merit procedures, under Anders and
¶ 28. We believe it is appropriate to return the case to the trial court to give that court the first opportunity to consider the merits of Fortier‘s argument for reduced sentences, and we thus reverse and remand for a hearing at the trial court.5
By the Court.—Order reversed and cause remanded.
¶ 30. FINE, J. (concurring/dissenting). I agree with the Majority that under the circumstances of this case Ricky J. Fortier is not barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 181, 517 N.W.2d 157, 162 (1994), from seeking redress on this appeal. I disagree, however, with the Majority‘s decision to remand.
¶ 31. First, the Majority does not assert that there is a presumption of unlawful vindictiveness that tainted Fortier‘s second sentencing. Indeed, under State v. Naydihor, 2004 WI 43, ¶¶ 32-56, 270 Wis. 2d 585, 608-623, 678 N.W.2d 220, 232-240, there is no presumption that vindictiveness infected the resentencing unless the error that led to the need for resentencing was that of the sentencing court. Here, as the Majority notes, the error that tainted the first sentencing in this case was made by the prosecutor, not by the judge, and,
¶ 32. Second, in light of the absence of any evidence of sentencing vindictiveness—by virtue of either the presumption discussed in Naydihor, or actual vindictiveness shown by Fortier—this case presents a simple appellate issue: did the second trial judge erroneously exercise her discretion in Fortier‘s resentencing. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶ 17, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 549, 678 N.W.2d 197, 203 (“It is a well-settled principle of law that a circuit court exercises discretion at sentencing. On appeal, review is limited to determining if discretion was erroneously exercised.“) (citation omitted). Thus, I do not understand why the Majority is remanding the case to the trial court for, presumably, an evidentiary hearing.
¶ 33. Third, I have read closely the trial court‘s sentencing explanation of why it was imposing the 1,000 hours of community service, and why the trial court was concerned that Fortier needed significant help to avoid relapse into either alcohol dependency (which Fortier indicated he had resolved) or illegal-substance dependency (which the trial court determined was Fortier‘s alcohol-surrogate). Significantly, the trial court explained that the 1,000 hours were not to be make-work punishment, but, rather, were “to be performed at an organization which is appropriate to deal with persons who have addictions to controlled
¶ 34. In sum, I do not perceive how the trial court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion on remand, and, accordingly, I would affirm. Thus, I respectfully dissent from the Majority‘s decision to remand this case for a hearing, although, as noted, I agree that Fortier‘s arguments on this appeal are not barred by Escalona-Naranjo.
Notes
All grounds for relief available to a person under this section must be raised in his or her original, supplemental or amended motion. Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the person has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent motion, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental or amended motion.