State v. Robert E. Hammersley ( 2024 )

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
January 4, 2024
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.
Appeal No. 2022AP263-CR Cir. Ct. No. 1998CT1403
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
ROBERT E. HAMMERSLEY,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Brown County:
BEAU LIEGEOIS, Judge. Affirmed; sanctions imposed.
¶1 STARK, P.J.1 Robert E. Hammersley, pro se, appeals orders
denying his motions for a John Doe hearing,2 denying his motion for
1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2) (2021-22). All
references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2022AP263
reconsideration of that denial, and the circuit court’s failure to act on his petition
for a writ of coram nobis. We conclude that Hammersley’s claims are
procedurally barred. Accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 In 1998, a vehicle that Hammersley was driving collided with
another vehicle, and Hammersley drove away from the accident scene. The other
vehicle’s occupants followed Hammersley and eventually “held him” at a gas
station until the police arrived. Hammersley gave various versions of the events
surrounding the collision to police and he ultimately told the investigating police
officer that he knew he was drunk. A subsequent blood test yielded a result of
0.17 blood alcohol content.
¶3 Hammersley was charged with three counts: hit and run of an
attended vehicle; operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a third offense;
and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) as a
third offense. He pled no contest to the first and third counts, and the second
count was dismissed.3 Sentence was withheld on the hit-and-run count, and
Hammersley was placed on probation for one year. On the third count, the circuit
court sentenced Hammersley to forty-five days in jail, and revoked his driver’s
license for twenty-six months.
2
“The Wisconsin John Doe proceeding is a criminal investigatory inquiry provided for
by [WIS. STAT.] § 968.26. Its purpose is to ascertain whether a crime has been committed and by
whom.” WIS JI—CRIMINAL SM-12 (2019).
3
Pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(c), the operating while intoxicated charge was
dismissed after Hammersley’s no-contest plea.
2
No. 2022AP263
¶4 On April 21, 2020, Hammersley filed a pro se “Petition for
Reconsideration of 2013 Decision and/or New Tendering of Request for a John
Doe Hearing Pursuant to [WIS. STAT. ]§ 968.26 and/or Federal Investigations with
Request for 13 Judicial Notices.”4 The petition alleged that following the
accident, the occupants of the vehicle he hit had attempted to murder him that day
by throwing a tire iron at him. The petition further alleged that the vehicle’s
occupants kidnapped him when they held him until the police arrived, that these
acts amounted to “terrorism,” and that the police were complicit in these actions.
The circuit court denied the petition in a written order on July 24, 2020, due to the
matter having “already been reviewed and conclusively decided by [the circuit
court], [which] denied Mr. Hammersley’s previous petition.” On August 12,
2020, Hammersley filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 2020 order, and
that motion was denied on September 2, 2020.
¶5 On September 21, 2020, Hammersley filed a three-part petition for a
John Doe hearing. This petition was denied, and Hammersley’s subsequent
motion for reconsideration was also denied. On December 10, 2020, Hammersley
filed a “Petition for Coram Nobis[5] and Reassessment of 2020 John Doe Decisions
4
Hammersley has not provided this court with his original John Doe petition or the 2013
order denying his petition, nor has he identified any facts that would demonstrate that the circuit
court violated a plain legal duty by denying the 2013 petition. We note that “[i]t is the appellant’s
responsibility to ensure completion of the appellate record and ‘when an appellate record is
incomplete in connection with an issue raised by the appellant, we must assume that the missing
material supports the … court’s ruling.’” State v. McAttee, 2001 WI App 262, ¶5 n.1, 248
Wis. 2d 865, 637 N.W.2d 774 (citation omitted).
5
A writ of coram nobis
(continued)
3
No. 2022AP263
File No. 13JD24 and/or Continued Request for a John Doe Hearing Pursuant to
WIS. STAT. § 968.26 and/or Coupled with Requests Under 28 U.S.C. § 535Federal Investigations with Re-Requested 13 Judicial Notices to Assist in Setting
Aside the Wrongful Convictions in Case No. [19]98CT1403.” This document
contained the same allegations as the April 2020 request for a John Doe hearing.
The circuit court did not act on this petition.
¶6 On July 23, 2021, Hammersley filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus in this court, which we denied, stating the following:
Robert Hammersley has filed a petition for a supervisory
writ of mandamus that appears to be challenging: (1) an
order issued by Judge Beau G. Liegeois on July 24, 2020,
denying Hammersley’s petition for a John Doe
investigation; (2) an order issued by Judge Liegeois on
September 2, 2020, denying Hammersley’s motion for
reconsideration of the denial of the John Doe petition and
directing Hammersley to apply to this court with any
further requests for review of the John Doe proceeding; and
(3) the circuit court’s failure to act upon Hammersley’s
December 2, 2020, petition for a writ of coram nobis
relating to a conviction in a 1998 Brown County case.
These appear to be essentially the same issues Hammersley
previously raised before this court in his “request for
investigation” in No. 2021XX625.
Aside from being procedurally barred from filing
successive petitions seeking the same relief, Hammersley
again fails to provide any grounds that would warrant the
relief he seeks. Hammersley has not provided copies of his
original John Doe petition or the July 24, 2020, order
is of very limited scope. It is a discretionary writ which is
addressed to the [circuit] court. The purpose of the writ is to
give the … court an opportunity to correct its own record of an
error of fact not appearing on the record and which error would
not have been committed by the court if the matter had been
brought to the attention of the … court.
Jessen v. State, 95 Wis. 2d 207, 213-14, 290 N.W.2d 685 (1980).
4
No. 2022AP263
denying it, and he has not identified any facts that would
demonstrate the judge violated a plain legal duty by
denying the petition. In addition, Hammersley continues to
operate under the mistaken belief that the circuit court
judge could issue a supervisory writ to himself upon
reconsideration. As we have previously explained, the
proper mechanism for review of an order denying a
John Doe petition is by a supervisory writ petition to this
court, not by a writ petition to the circuit court. See State
ex rel. Unnamed Person No. 1 v. State, 2003 WI 30, ¶38,
260 Wis. 2d 653, 660 N.W.2d 260.
Finally, assuming we construe the circuit court’s failure to
act upon the coram nobis petition—in conjunction with its
prior indication that it would not be addressing the matter
further—as a constructive denial of the petition,
Hammersley has not demonstrated that he was entitled to
coram nobis relief.
….
In order to constitute grounds for the issuance of a writ of
error coram nobis there must be shown the existence of an
error of fact which was unknown at the time of trial and
which is of such a nature that knowledge of its existence at
the time of trial would have prevented the entry of
judgment. The writ does not lie to correct errors of law and
of fact appearing on the record since such errors are
traditionally corrected by appeals and writs of error.
Likewise where the writ of habeas corpus affords a proper
and complete remedy the writ of error coram nobis will not
be granted. On an application for a writ of error coram
nobis the merits of the original controversy are not in issue.
Jessen v. State, 95 Wis. 2d 207, 213-14, 290 N.W.2d 685(1980) (citations omitted).
In short, Hammersley’s complaints of “a whole slew of
fundamental and/or structural errors in the 1998
conviction” are the types of alleged errors of law and fact
that could have been addressed by a timely appeal, and they
are not the proper subject of a coram nobis petition.
Hammersley v. Circuit Ct. for Brown Cnty., 2021AP1269-W (WI App. Dec. 22,
2021).
5
No. 2022AP263
¶7 Hammersley now appeals the circuit court’s orders denying his April
2020 and August 2020 motions, as well as the circuit court’s failure to act on his
December 2020 petition for a writ of coram nobis.
DISCUSSION
¶8 Hammersley argues that the circuit court should have heard his
John Doe motions, should have granted his petition for a writ of coram nobis, and
should have “voided the … wrongful criminal judgments and unlawful … arrests
against him.” We conclude that Hammersley’s claims are procedurally barred.
¶9 “Whether a defendant’s appeal is procedurally barred is a question
of law that we review de novo.” State ex rel. Washington v. State, 2012 WI App
74, ¶27, 343 Wis. 2d 434, 819 N.W.2d 305. “A matter once litigated may not be
relitigated in a subsequent postconviction proceeding no matter how artfully the
defendant may rephrase the issue.” State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990, 473
N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991).
¶10 Hammersley raises a number of issues regarding the circuit court’s
denial of his motions and failure to act on his petition for a writ of coram nobis.6
He appears to argue that the court erred by failing to consider the merits of his
John Doe motions and his petition for a writ of coram nobis. It is clear, however,
6
To the extent we do not address issues or arguments that Hammersley intended to raise,
we conclude that such issues or arguments are not sufficiently developed, are conclusory, and are
too difficult to decipher. Accordingly, we reject them. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627,
646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).
We also note that Hammersley appears to argue errors in other cases that are unrelated to
this case. We will not discuss the merits of these claims and will not address them any further.
6
No. 2022AP263
that the issues Hammersley raised in those filings were previously addressed by
the circuit court and this court.
¶11 The circuit court denied Hammersley’s April 2020 petition for
reconsideration of its 2013 order denying his motion for a John Doe hearing
because the issues had “already been reviewed and conclusively decided.”
Similarly, his August 2020 motion for reconsideration of the July 2020 order was
denied because the issues raised in the petition had already been litigated.
Hammersley’s September 2020 motion for a John Doe hearing was denied for a
number of reasons, including that the facts Hammersley cited in support of his
motion would not affect his underlying PAC conviction. Finally, this court denied
Hammersley’s July 2021 petition for a writ of mandamus for the reasons quoted
above. Thus, the issues raised in Hammersley’s John Doe motions, petition for a
writ of coram nobis, and petition for a writ of mandamus have all been previously
litigated and “may not be relitigated in a subsequent postconviction proceeding.”
See id.¶12 In reply, Hammersley argues that his claims are not barred by
Witkowski because they were not “properly” previously litigated. It is unclear
what Hammersley means by “properly” litigated, insomuch as his claims and
allegations have been extensively addressed by the circuit court and this court in
prior decisions. We also note that Hammersley had the opportunity to appeal the
2013 order denying his original petition for a John Doe hearing, but he failed to do
so. Accordingly, we reject this undeveloped argument. See State v. Pettit, 171
Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).
¶13 Hammersley argues that his claims could not have been raised in
previous appeals “without an actual real investigation and terrorism and
7
No. 2022AP263
government misconduct.” Again, while difficult to understand his briefing, the
crux of Hammersley’s argument appears to be that he should be granted
postconviction relief in this case because he fled the scene of the 1998 collision
due to the occupants of the other vehicle allegedly attempting to murder and
kidnap him and these acts amounted to terrorism.
¶14 Regardless of any potential merit in these claims, the bases for
Hammersley’s requested John Doe proceedings and writ of coram nobis have been
previously addressed by the circuit court and this court. His assertion that he
could not have raised these claims in previous appeals is without merit, and his
claims are procedurally barred.7
¶15 The State argues that Hammersley is abusing the appellate process
by repetitively relitigating the same matters, and it asks that this court impose
sanctions against Hammersley. In light of Hammersley’s repetitious filings, we
agree. This court has the inherent power to “ensure that it ‘functions efficiently
and effectively to provide the fair administration of justice,’ and to control its
docket with economy of time and effort.” State v. Casteel, 2001 WI App 188,
¶23, 247 Wis. 2d 451, 634 N.W.2d 338 (citation omitted). “Frivolous actions
hinder a court’s ability to function efficiently and effectively and to fairly
administer justice to litigants who have brought nonfrivolous actions.” Id. This
court can require that a litigant abusing the appellate process obtain prior approval
7
We further note that Hammersley’s allegations made in support of his John Doe motion
would not provide a basis for any relief to Hammersley regarding his PAC conviction in this case.
Even if the alleged crimes by the vehicle’s occupants took place, those crimes do not in any way
suggest that Hammersley was innocent of the crime of operating a vehicle with a prohibited
alcohol content.
8
No. 2022AP263
for any future filings, on a case-by-case basis, so as to prevent additional frivolous
findings. Id., ¶¶23-27.
¶16 Accordingly, we order that no further appellate filings will be
accepted from Hammersley unless he submits by affidavit all of the
following: (1) “[a] copy of the circuit court’s written decision and order he seeks
to appeal,” (2) “[a] statement setting forth the specific grounds upon which this
court can grant relief,” (3) “[a] statement showing how the issues sought to be
raised differ from issues raised and previously adjudicated, and” (4) “[a] statement
of why any new claims so raised are acceptable under [Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d at
990.]” See Casteel, 247 Wis. 2d 451, ¶25.
By the Court.—Orders affirmed; sanctions imposed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.
9