Title: State v. Roger S. Walker

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2006 WI 82 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP2820-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Roger S. Walker, 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
(no cite) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 30, 2006 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
February 22, 2006   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Green Lake   
 
JUDGE: 
William M. McMonigal 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs 
by James Rebholz and Rebholz & Auberry, Wauwatosa, and oral 
argument by James Rebholz. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief and oral 
argument by Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general, 
with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney 
general. 
 
 
2006 WI 82
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP2820-CR   
(L.C. No. 
1999CF54) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Roger S. Walker, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 30, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Modified and 
affirmed and, as modified, cause remanded.   
 
¶1 
DAVID T. PROSSER, J.   Roger Walker (Walker) was 
convicted of first-degree sexual assault of a child in violation 
of Wis. Stat. § 948.02(1) (1991-92) in Fond du Lac County.  He 
was also convicted of first-degree sexual assault of the same 
child for a different offense in Green Lake County.  This is a 
review of an unpublished court of appeals decision1 dismissing 
Walker's appeal from his Green Lake conviction. 
                                                 
1 State v. Walker, No. 2004AP2820-CR, unpublished order 
(Wis. Ct. App. June 29, 2005). 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
2 
 
¶2 
Walker was convicted in Fond du Lac in 1999.  He was 
given a sentence of 20 years.  In 2000 he was convicted in Green 
Lake County after he entered an Alford plea.2  The Green Lake 
County Circuit Court, W.M. McMonigal, Judge, withheld sentence 
and imposed 20 years of probation consecutive to the 20-year 
prison sentence.  In 2001 the court of appeals vacated Walker's 
Fond du Lac conviction because of ineffective assistance of 
counsel.  State v. Walker, No. 2000AP2576-CR, unpublished slip 
op. (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2001).  As a result, Walker was 
released on his Green Lake probation. 
¶3 
When he violated the terms of his probation, Walker 
was revoked and scheduled to appear in the Green Lake County 
Circuit Court for sentencing after revocation.  Before he could 
make this appearance, however, he was retried in Fond du Lac, 
convicted, and again sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. 
¶4 
Thus, 
when Walker 
appeared 
for sentencing 
after 
revocation in Green Lake, he had been convicted of two serious 
felonies and had his probation revoked.  In this second 
sentencing, the Green Lake County Circuit Court sentenced Walker 
to 12 years imprisonment consecutive to the 20-year Fond du Lac 
sentence.  We refer to this 12-year sentence as the Revocation 
Sentence. 
¶5 
Walker 
filed 
a 
notice 
of 
intent 
to 
pursue 
postconviction 
relief, 
requested transcripts, 
and filed a 
postconviction motion for sentence modification.  Walker's 
                                                 
2 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
3 
 
postconviction motion alleged ineffective assistance of counsel 
because his attorney failed to contradict inaccurate sentencing 
information provided to the Green Lake court.3  The parties 
stipulated to resentencing.  The circuit court accepted the 
parties' stipulation, vacated the Revocation Sentence, and held 
a third sentencing hearing at which it considered the additional 
information.4  The circuit court resentenced Walker, again 
imposing 12 years imprisonment (the Resentence) consecutive to 
the Fond du Lac sentence. 
¶6 
Walker appealed the Resentence directly to the court 
of appeals, claiming the circuit court erroneously exercised its 
discretion by imposing the same sentence as the Revocation 
Sentence despite receiving new information.  The court of 
appeals summarily dismissed Walker's appeal because he did not 
file a postconviction motion to give the circuit court an 
opportunity to reconsider the sentence imposed at resentencing, 
as required by Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30 (2003-04).5 
                                                 
3 A defendant has a due process right to be sentenced on 
true and correct information.  State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, 
¶9, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___; State v. Greve, 2004 WI 69, 
¶27, 272 Wis. 2d 444, 681 N.W.2d 479; State v. Johnson, 158 
Wis. 2d 458, 468, 463 N.W.2d 352 (Ct. App. 1990). 
4 The additional information presented at the resentencing 
hearing was trial testimony from a medical doctor given at 
Walker's Fond du Lac trial, that contradicted representations 
made by the victim's mother at the original sentencing hearing 
in Green Lake about the physical effects of the sexual assault 
on her son. 
5 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-
04 edition unless otherwise noted. 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
4 
 
¶7 
This case presents the question whether a defendant 
must file a postconviction motion with the circuit court before 
appealing a sentence imposed at resentencing, when the sentence 
turns out to be identical to the court's previous sentence.  We 
conclude that when a defendant seeks modification of the 
sentence imposed at resentencing, Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30 and 
Wis. Stat. § 973.19 
require 
the 
defendant 
to 
file 
a 
postconviction motion with the circuit court before taking an 
appeal, even though the sentence is identical to a previous 
sentence. 
¶8 
Nonetheless, given the unusual procedural history of 
this case and Walker's good faith efforts to comply with 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30, we determine there is good cause to 
enlarge the time within which Walker can file his intent to 
pursue postconviction relief and his postconviction motion with 
the circuit court.  Accordingly, although we agree with the 
substance of the court of appeals' ruling, we modify the 
decision of the court of appeals to allow the defendant to move 
for sentence modification, and remand Walker's cause to the 
circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.  In short, we modify and affirm. 
I 
 
¶9 
Wisconsin Stat. 
(Rule) § 
809.30 
establishes 
a 
blueprint for appellate procedure in criminal cases.6  The 
                                                 
6 For an in-depth discussion of Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30 
and criminal appeals, see Michael S. Heffernan, Appellate 
Practice and Procedure in Wisconsin, ch. 19 (3rd ed. 2002). 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
5 
 
appeals process begins when a defendant files a notice of intent 
to pursue postconviction relief with the circuit court within 20 
days of sentencing or final judgment.7  Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
§ 809.30(2)(b).  In this case, the circuit court imposed 
Walker's Revocation Sentence on March 24, 2004.  On April 8 
Walker complied with Rule § 809.30(2)(b) by filing his notice of 
intent to pursue postconviction relief from the Revocation 
Sentence. 
                                                 
7 The notice shall include all of the following: 
1. The case name and number. 
2. An identification of the judgment or order from 
which the person intends to seek postconviction or 
postdisposition relief and the date on which the 
judgment or order was entered. 
3. The name and address of the person and his or her 
trial counsel. 
4. Whether the person's trial counsel was appointed by 
the state public defender and, if so, whether the 
person's financial circumstances have materially 
improved since the date on which his or her 
indigency was determined. 
5. Whether 
the 
person 
requests 
the state 
public 
defender 
to 
appoint 
counsel 
for 
purposes 
of 
postconviction or postdisposition relief. 
6. Whether a person who does not request the state 
public defender to appoint counsel will represent 
himself or herself or will be represented by 
retained counsel.  If the person has retained 
counsel to pursue postconviction or postdisposition 
relief, 
counsel's 
name 
and 
address 
shall 
be 
included. 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(b). 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
6 
 
¶10 After a defendant files a notice of intent to seek 
postconviction relief, the clerk of circuit court has five days 
to (1) forward the defendant's request for representation, the 
judgment or order from which relief is sought, and transcript-
related information to the state public defender; or (2) send 
this 
information 
to 
the 
defendant 
or 
his 
attorney.  
Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(c).  In this case, the clerk of 
circuit court timely forwarded Walker's request to the state 
public defender on April 13, as required. 
¶11 Upon receipt of Walker's request for representation, 
the state public defender appointed Attorney James Rebholz to 
represent Walker.  On April 28 Rebholz filed a timely request 
for the circuit court record, including transcripts.  See 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(e).  On May 3 the clerk of circuit 
court sent a copy of the circuit court record to Attorney 
Rebholz.  See Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(g). 
¶12 Next, a defendant must file a notice of appeal or 
postconviction motion.  Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(h).  In 
relevant part, Rule § 809.30(2)(h) states: 
The person shall file in circuit court and serve on 
the prosecutor and any other party a notice of appeal 
or motion seeking postconviction or postdisposition 
relief within 60 days after the later of the service 
of the transcript or circuit court case record.  The 
person shall file a motion for postconviction or 
postdisposition relief before a notice of appeal is 
filed unless the grounds for seeking relief are 
sufficiency of the evidence or issues previously 
raised. 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
7 
 
(Emphasis added.)  Walker timely filed a postconviction motion 
seeking modification of the Revocation Sentence on July 1, in 
compliance with § 809.30(2)(h).8 
¶13 This motion for sentence modification resulted in a 
hearing before the circuit court.  The court accepted the 
parties' stipulation for resentencing, and it vacated the 
Revocation Sentence.9   
¶14 After vacation of his sentence, Walker had no sentence 
for his conviction in Green Lake County.  The parties and court 
had converted his motion to modify an existing sentence into a 
successful motion to vacate an existing sentence. 
¶15 On 
October 
6, 
2004, 
the 
circuit 
court 
held 
a 
resentencing hearing, and it again sentenced Walker to 12 years 
                                                 
8 At the sentencing hearing after revocation, the prosecutor 
suggested, and the victim's mother clearly stated, that the 
sexual assault caused the victim to require surgery to remove 
his colon.  Walker's attorney did not contest this information 
even though there was medical expert testimony from the Fond du 
Lac County trial that the surgery was unrelated to the sexual 
assault.  Based on this omission, Walker sought sentence 
modification, claiming his defense counsel was ineffective for 
failing to present this mitigating information to the circuit 
court. 
This information was relevant at sentencing because one 
factor a court should consider is the gravity and nature of the 
offense, which includes consideration of the effect upon the 
victim.  State v. Carter, 208 Wis. 2d 142, 156, 560 N.W.2d 256 
(1997). 
9 Wisconsin Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(i) requires a circuit 
court to "determine by an order the person's motion for 
postconviction or postdisposition relief within 60 days after 
the filing of the motion or the motion is considered to be 
denied and the clerk of circuit court shall immediately enter an 
order denying the motion." 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
8 
 
imprisonment (the Resentence), consecutive to the Fond du Lac 
sentence.  The substance of the Resentence was identical to the 
substance of the Revocation Sentence. 
¶16 At this point, Walker's attorney chose to follow 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) 
§ 809.30(2)(j) 
(appeal 
from 
judgment 
and 
order).  Walker filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court 
on October 25.  Rule § 809.30(2)(j) provides in part: 
The person shall file in circuit court and serve on 
the prosecutor and any other party a notice of appeal 
from the judgment of conviction and sentence or final 
adjudication and, if necessary, from the order of the 
circuit court on the motion for postconviction or 
postdisposition relief within 20 days of the entry of 
the order on the postconviction or postdisposition 
motion. 
Walker appealed from the judgment of conviction and attacked the 
Resentence. 
¶17 In this appeal, Walker alleged the circuit court 
erroneously exercised its discretion by imposing the same 
sentence at his Resentence as it had imposed at the Revocation 
Sentence, in spite of mitigating information.  State v. Walker, 
No. 2004AP2820-CR, unpublished order (Wis. Ct. App. June 29, 
2005).  The court of appeals summarily dismissed Walker's 
appeal.  Id.  The court of appeals held Walker had not complied 
with a "necessary condition precedent to the appeal" because he 
did not first bring a motion for sentence modification, giving 
the circuit court an opportunity to reconsider the Resentence.  
Id.  We granted Walker's petition for review to address whether 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2) and Wis. Stat. § 973.19 require a 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
9 
 
defendant seeking modification of the sentence imposed at 
resentencing to file a postconviction motion with the court 
before taking an appeal. 
II 
 
¶18 To determine whether Walker was required to seek 
reconsideration of the sentence imposed at resentencing before 
pursuing an appeal, we must interpret Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30 
and Wis. Stat. § 973.19.  Statutory interpretation presents a 
question of law we review de novo.  State v. Tucker, 2005 WI 46, 
¶11, 279 Wis. 2d 697, 694 N.W.2d 926; State v. Sorenson, 2000 WI 
43, ¶15, 234 Wis. 2d 648, 611 N.W.2d 240. 
III 
 
¶19 The State contends the court of appeals properly 
dismissed Walker's appeal because he failed to follow the 
procedures in Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30.  Specifically, the 
State asserts that Walker (1) did not file a notice of intent to 
pursue postconviction relief from the Resentence under Rule 
§ 809.30(2)(b); (2) did not file a request for transcripts under 
Rule § 809.30(2)(e); and (3) did not file a postconviction 
motion seeking reconsideration of the Resentence under Rule 
§ 809.30(2)(h), all of which, it contends, are required.  In 
short, the State argues a defendant must file a postconviction 
motion for sentence modification regardless whether he seeks to 
challenge an original sentence or a resentence. 
 
¶20 Walker responds that the State's interpretation of 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30 produces the absurd result of an 
infinite loop; that is, defendants could be forced to file 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
10 
 
repeated postconviction motions in the circuit court without 
getting to an appeal.  Walker contends the legislature could not 
have intended to require a defendant to return to the circuit 
court after the circuit court imposed the same sentence at 
resentencing as it imposed at a previous sentencing.  Walker 
argues his motion for modification of the Revocation Sentence 
satisfied the requirements of Rule § 809.30.  He contends the 
circuit court did not dispose of his postconviction motion until 
it resentenced him. 
¶21 We disagree.  Walker constructs his argument on the 
faulty premise that it was not until he was resentenced that the 
circuit court disposed of his motion for modification.  In fact, 
the 
circuit 
court's 
August 
17 
order, 
which 
vacated 
the 
Revocation Sentence, resolved Walker's postconviction motion in 
his favor.  His victory, however, was fleeting.  When the 
circuit court resentenced Walker on October 6, it entered a new 
sentence on a new judgment of conviction, even though the 
duration of the sentence turned out to be the same as the 
previous sentence.  Therefore, the earlier-filed postconviction 
motion for modification of the Revocation Sentence did not 
encompass or in any way challenge the Resentence.  Cf. State v. 
Scaccio, 2000 WI App 265, ¶¶7-12, 240 Wis. 2d 95, 622 N.W.2d 449 
(concluding that an original judgment of conviction and a post-
revocation sentence are independent and can each give rise to 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30 postconviction motions and appeals). 
¶22 We disagree with Walker's claim that his motion for 
modification 
of 
the 
Revocation 
Sentence 
satisfied 
the 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
11 
 
requirements of Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30 as to the Resentence.  
First, Rule § 809.30(2)(b) requires that a notice of intent to 
pursue postconviction relief identify "the judgment or order 
from 
which 
the 
person 
intends 
to 
seek 
postconviction . . . relief and the date on which the judgment 
or order was entered."  Walker's only notice of intent to pursue 
postconviction relief identifies the judgment of conviction 
entered 
on 
March 
24 
(the 
Revocation 
Sentence), 
not 
the 
Resentence, which was entered on October 6. 
¶23 Second, Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(e) requires a 
defendant to request transcripts.  There is a transcript of the 
October 6 resentencing hearing in the record but the transcript 
was not prepared after a notice of intent to seek postconviction 
relief 
under 
§ 809.30(2)(b) 
or 
to 
support 
a 
motion 
for 
postconviction relief under § 809.30(2)(h).  It was prepared 
before a notice of appeal was filed.10 
¶24 Third, Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(h) requires a 
defendant to "file a motion for postconviction . . . relief 
before a notice of appeal is filed unless the grounds for 
seeking relief are sufficiency of the evidence or issues 
previously raised."  (Emphasis added.)  Contrary to the plain 
mandate of Rule § 809.30(2)(h), Walker did not file a motion for 
postconviction relief from the Resentence, even though his 
challenge to the Resentence did not fall within either exception 
                                                 
10 The transcript of the resentencing hearing is likely part 
of the record on appeal because SCR 71.04(5)(a) requires a 
transcript of sentencing to be filed with the circuit court. 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
12 
 
to this requirement.  Walker's appeal does not challenge the 
sufficiency of the evidence or raise an issue previously raised.   
¶25 Walker raised a due process issue when he challenged 
the Revocation Sentence.  He raised a different issue——that the 
circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by imposing 
the 
same 
sentence——when 
he 
challenged 
the 
Resentence.  
Accordingly, the court of appeals correctly concluded that 
Walker failed to comply with Rule § 809.30. 
¶26 The court of appeals decision relied upon State v. 
Meyer, 150 Wis. 2d 603, 442 N.W.2d 483 (Ct. App. 1989).  Walker 
contends the court of appeals erred in relying on Meyer, because 
Meyer concerned an appeal pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.19.  
Again, we disagree.   
¶27 It is unclear from Walker's notice of appeal whether 
he appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30 or pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 973.19.  For purposes of this case, it does not 
matter.  The reasoning in Meyer is explicative to either 
procedure.  To understand why, we review the relationship 
between these two statutes. 
¶28 Wisconsin Stat. § 973.19 is intended to offer "an 
expeditious 
alternative 
to 
the 
procedure 
prescribed 
in 
[Wis. Stat. (Rule) 
§] 
809.30(2) 
when 
the 
only 
claim 
for 
postconviction relief relates to the severity of the sentence."  
Judicial Council Note, 1984, § 973.19; see also Scaccio, 240 
Wis. 2d 95, ¶5.  Defendants may choose whether to bring a motion 
to modify a sentence under § 973.19(1)(a) or § 973.19(1)(b).  If 
a defendant does not request the preparation of transcripts 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
13 
 
pursuant to Rule § 809.30(2)(e) or (f), then he may proceed 
under § 973.19(1)(a).  Alternatively, if a defendant requests 
the preparation of transcripts, then his postconviction motion 
is governed by § 973.19(1)(b) and Rule § 809.30(2). 
¶29 The 
choice 
is 
not 
without 
consequence. 
 
Two 
consequences to proceeding under Wis. Stat. § 973.19(1)(a) are 
noteworthy.  See Meyer, 150 Wis. 2d at 608.  First, by 
proceeding under § 973.19(1)(a) a defendant waives his right to 
file an appeal or postconviction motion under Wis. Stat. (Rule) 
§ 809.30(2), thereby limiting the potential issues on appeal to 
sentence modification.  See Wis. Stat. § 973.19(5).  Second, if 
a defendant wishes to appeal the ruling on his modification 
motion, the appeal is governed by the procedure for civil 
appeals rather than Rule § 809.30.  See Wis. Stat. § 973.19(4). 
¶30 Although 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) 
§ 809.30(2) 
and 
Wis. Stat. § 973.19 
establish 
alternative 
methods 
for 
a 
defendant to seek sentence modification, both statutes require a 
defendant 
to 
file 
a 
postconviction 
motion 
for 
sentence 
modification in the circuit court before filing an appeal.  See 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(h) and § 973.19(1); see also State 
v. Norwood, 161 Wis. 2d 676, 681, 468 N.W.2d 741 (Ct. App. 
1991).  Both statutes embody the policy that it is better to 
give the circuit court, which is familiar with the facts and 
issues, an opportunity to correct any error it has made before 
requiring an appellate court to expend its resources in review.  
See Spannuth v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 362, 365-66, 234 N.W.2d 79 
(1975); Whitmore v. State, 56 Wis. 2d 706, 717, 203 N.W.2d 56 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
14 
 
(1973); State v. Lynch, 105 Wis. 2d 164, 167, 312 N.W.2d 871 
(Ct. App. 1981) (explaining that this policy, recognized in 
Spannuth, survived the adoption of the current rules of 
appellate procedure).  Thus, contrary to Walker's protestations, 
it was not error for the court of appeals to apply the reasoning 
in Meyer to appeals pursuant to § 973.19(1)(b) and Rule 
§ 809.30(2). 
 
¶31 Finally, Walker contends we should reverse the circuit 
court because compelling circumstances demand that this appeal 
be decided on its merits.  A postconviction motion in the 
circuit court is a prerequisite to appellate review when a 
defendant challenges a sentence as an erroneous exercise of 
discretion, unless compelling circumstances justify overriding 
this requirement.  Sears v. State, 94 Wis. 2d 128, 140, 287 
N.W.2d 785 (1980); Spannuth, 70 Wis. 2d at 365; Korpela v. 
State, 63 Wis. 2d 697, 702, 218 N.W.2d 368 (1974); Gaddis v. 
State, 63 Wis. 2d 120, 129, 216 N.W.2d 527 (1974); Stockwell v. 
State, 59 Wis. 2d 21, 28, 207 N.W.2d 883 (1973); Tatum v. State, 
51 
Wis. 2d 554, 
556-57, 
187 
N.W.2d 137 
(1971); 
State 
v. 
Charette, 51 Wis. 2d 531, 536, 187 N.W.2d 203 (1971); Farley v. 
State, 50 Wis. 2d 113, 115, 183 N.W.2d 33 (1971); Abraham v. 
State, 47 Wis. 2d 44, 49, 176 N.W.2d 349 (1970); State v. 
Escobedo, 44 Wis. 2d 85, 92, 170 N.W.2d 709 (1969); Okimosh v. 
State, 34 Wis. 2d 120, 121, 148 N.W.2d 652 (1967); State v. Van 
Beek, 31 Wis. 2d 51, 53, 141 N.W.2d 873 (1966); State v. 
Fearing, 2000 WI App 229, ¶7, 239 Wis. 2d 105, 619 N.W.2d 115; 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
15 
 
Norwood, 161 Wis. 2d at 680; Meyer, 150 Wis. 2d at 605; Lynch, 
105 Wis. 2d at 167. 
 
¶32 According to Walker, his appeal presents a compelling 
circumstance because the circuit court imposed the same sentence 
upon resentencing.  In effect, Walker contends, the circuit 
court 
did 
not 
decide 
his 
original 
motion 
for 
sentence 
modification until it resentenced him.  Therefore, Walker 
concludes, he complied with Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(h) 
when he filed a notice of intent to seek postconviction relief 
after the circuit court imposed the Revocation Sentence. 
¶33 Only four published decisions from Wisconsin courts 
have found compelling circumstances where a defendant has failed 
to file a postconviction motion.  First, we have held that 
compelling circumstances exist where there is a time lag or a 
gap between the duties of trial counsel and appellate counsel 
that prevents postconviction motions from being timely filed.  
Stockwell, 59 Wis. 2d at 28; Whitmore, 56 Wis. 2d at 717-18.  
Second, we have held that a pro se defendant's failure to file a 
postconviction motion can constitute compelling circumstances 
depending upon the facts of the case.  Abraham, 47 Wis. 2d at 
49.  Finally, the court of appeals has concluded that compelling 
circumstances exist where a defendant's appeal raised a question 
of law that raised "significant questions" about the circuit 
court's authority, and that did not depend upon disputed facts 
or a review of the circuit court's exercise of discretion.  
Fearing, 239 Wis. 2d 105, ¶7. 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
16 
 
 
¶34 We are doubtful that compelling circumstances exist in 
this case in the sense that compliance with the appellate rules 
would 
have 
been 
extremely 
difficult 
or 
impossible.  
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the facts and procedural 
history are highly unusual.  Our rules dictate that counsel seek 
a fourth sentencing hearing to modify the sentence imposed in a 
resentencing after a sentence after revocation was vacated 
before filing an appeal.  We are not unsympathetic to the 
confusion that this unusual set of facts must have created for 
counsel. 
¶35 In light of the good faith efforts Walker's attorney 
made to comply with the requirements of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
§ 809.30(2), we resolve our doubt as to whether compelling 
circumstances exist in favor of deciding Walker's appeal on the 
merits.  Cf. Spannuth, 70 Wis. 2d at 365-66; Gaddis, 63 
Wis. 2d at 129; Lynch, 105 Wis. 2d at 167.  Under the unusual 
facts of this case, we conclude that both the integrity of the 
criminal justice system and the interest in the finality of 
Walker's sentence call for a determination on the merits.  
¶36 Accordingly, 
pursuant 
to 
our 
authority 
under 
Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.82(2), we conclude good cause exists to 
enlarge the time in which Walker can file a notice of intent to 
seek postconviction relief and a postconviction motion.11  If 
Walker follows this procedure, the circuit court will have an 
                                                 
11 At oral argument, the State agreed that remand would be 
the proper disposition for this case. 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
17 
 
opportunity to consider whether it erroneously exercised its 
discretion when it imposed the same sentence upon Walker at 
resentencing that it imposed after revocation. 
IV 
¶37 In the hope of clarifying appellate procedure, we 
conclude that when a defendant seeks modification of the 
sentence imposed at resentencing, Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2) 
and 
Wis. Stat. § 973.19 
require 
the 
defendant 
to 
file 
a 
postconviction motion with the circuit court before taking an 
appeal.  These rules on sentence modification apply even though 
the sentence imposed at resentencing is identical to a previous 
sentence.12  The rules apply regardless of whether a defendant 
challenges the original sentence, a sentence after revocation, 
or the sentence imposed at resentencing. 
¶38 Because, however, Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2) and 
Wis. Stat. § 973.19 are silent in how they relate to a motion to 
modify a sentence imposed at resentencing, we conclude that 
there is good cause to grant Walker an extension of time to file 
a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief.  
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
modified and affirmed and, as modified, the cause is remanded to 
the circuit court. 
 
                                                 
12 Wisconsin Stat. (Rule) § 809.30(2)(h) recognizes two 
situations in which a defendant need not go back to the circuit 
court: when the grounds for seeking relief are "sufficiency of 
the evidence or issues previously raised."  These exceptions 
would not normally apply to modification of a sentence. 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
18 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 2004AP2820-CR 
 
 
1