State v. Salaam Johnson

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
March 10, 2026
To:
Hon. Pedro A. Colon
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Anna Hodges
Clerk of Circuit Court
Milwaukee County Safety Building
Electronic Notice
Sonya Bice
Electronic Notice
Salaam Johnson 222716
New Lisbon Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 2000
New Lisbon, WI 53950-2000
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2024AP1552-CR State of Wisconsin v. Salaam Johnson (L.C. # 1993CF934598)
Before White, C.J., Donald, and Geenen, JJ.
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).
Salaam Johnson, pro se, appeals from orders of the circuit court that denied his motions
for relief. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this
case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2023-24).1 The
orders are summarily affirmed.
A criminal complaint filed in December 1993 charged Johnson with ten various robbery
offenses. At the start of the preliminary hearing in January 1994, the State informed the circuit
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2024AP1552-CR
2
court it was withdrawing Count 6. The court asked the State if it was moving to dismiss the
charge; when the State answered affirmatively, the court granted the motion. The jury convicted
Johnson on five counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted robbery, and one count of
robbery, all with the threat of force. The court imposed consecutive indeterminate sentences
totaling 86 years of imprisonment with parole eligibility after 21 years and 6 months. Johnson
appealed; we affirmed. See State v. Johnson, No. 1995AP1849-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI
App May 29, 1996).
In 2006, Johnson filed a postconviction motion, assisted by counsel, alleging that the
circuit court had failed to give adequate reasons for the length of his sentence and claiming that
he was unaware that agreeing to have the charge in another case dismissed and read in meant the
court could consider the charge at sentencing. The circuit court denied the motion; we affirmed.
See State v. Johnson, No. 2006AP1238-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App Mar. 20, 2007).
Subsequently, Johnson filed: (1) a motion for sentence modification in October 2012;
(2) a motion for relief in March 2013; (3) a WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion in May 2013; (4) a
“legal pleading” in September 2018; (5) a motion to dismiss in September 2020; (6) a letter to
reopen or expunge the case or to modify the sentence in March 2021; (7) a § 974.06 motion in
September 2022; and (8) a § 974.06 motion in March 2023. These requests were all denied,
primarily based on the procedural bar of State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517
N.W.2d 157 (1994).2
2 Johnson had also filed notices of appeal from his 1994 judgment of conviction in January 2022,
May 2022, and March 2024. The first appeal was dismissed for nonpayment of the filing fee and the
second and third appeals were dismissed due to untimeliness and this court’s resulting lack of jurisdiction.

No. 2024AP1552-CR
3
On June 17, 2024, Johnson sent a letter addressed to the chief judge of the first judicial
administrative district. The letter evidently referred to the circuit court, which construed the
letter as a motion for reconsideration of a September 2018 order that denied Johnson’s “legal
pleading” as procedurally barred. The motion for reconsideration was denied on July 2, 2024.
On July 23, 2024, Johnson filed a motion for the production of documents or postconviction
discovery and a motion to dismiss. The circuit court denied both motions in a single order on
July 31, 2024, finding no legal basis for ordering the production of documents and again stating
that Johnson’s claims were procedurally barred by Escalona. Johnson appeals both July 2024
orders.
Johnson’s primary argument is a type of double jeopardy claim. Johnson asserts that the
pretrial dismissal of Count 6 was an adjudication of all ten pending charges, so that the dismissal
“became a final resolution on the merits as that determination of innocence acquitted the
defendant of all wrongdoing.” Thus, Johnson believes, when the nine remaining counts were
tried to a jury, double jeopardy violations occurred.
Any claim that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a previous WIS. STAT.
§ 974.06 postconviction motion is barred from being raised in a subsequent § 974.06 motion,
absent a sufficient reason. State v. Lo, 2003 WI 107, ¶2, 264 Wis. 2d 1, 665 N.W.2d 756.
Whether a procedural bar applies is a question of law. State v. Tolefree, 209 Wis. 2d 421, 424,
563 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1997). Since his conviction, Johnson has pursued at least ten
postconviction motions and five appeals. To the extent that his latest motions raise any new
issues, Johnson fails to offer any reason for his failure to raise those issues earlier.

No. 2024AP1552-CR
4
Instead, Johnson argues that the Escalona bar does not apply because the issue he is
raising is one of plain error. “Under the doctrine of plain error, an appellate court may review
error that was otherwise waived by a party’s failure to … preserve the error for review as a
matter of right.” State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, ¶29, 301 Wis. 2d 642, 734 N.W.2d 115. However,
we look beyond the labels that pro se prisoners affix to their pleadings. See Lewis v. Sullivan,
188 Wis. 2d 157, 165, 524 N.W.2d 630 (1994). A double jeopardy claim is a claim of
constitutional error, which places it squarely within the ambit of WIS. STAT. § 974.06. See State
v. Henley, 2010 WI 97, ¶52, 328 Wis. 2d 544, 787 N.W.2d 350. Accordingly, the circuit court
did not err in applying Escalona to reject Johnson’s motions.
We also note that Johnson has made this double jeopardy claim at least seven times
previously. After the circuit court denied his “motion to dismiss” in September 2020, Johnson
moved for reconsideration. As the circuit court explained when it denied reconsideration:
[Johnson] believes that the dismissal of count six at the preliminary
hearing was an “acquittal” which invalidated his prosecution on
the other counts. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Count
six is factually different from the other counts; the decision to
dismiss count six (on the State’s motion) was not an acquittal on
that count or any other, and it did not give rise to a double jeopardy
violation.
Thus, Johnson’s current motions are also barred by State v. Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990,
473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991), as matters once litigated cannot be relitigated, no matter how
the defendant reframes the issue.
At this juncture, the court will also warn Johnson regarding his excessive postconviction
filings. Serial litigation imposes a significant and unwarranted burden on the judicial system.
See State v. Casteel, 2001 WI App 188, ¶23, 247 Wis. 2d 451, 634 N.W.2d 338. No person is

No. 2024AP1552-CR
5
entitled to consume the limited resources of our courts with claims that the person knows or
should know are prohibited by familiar rules barring repetitious and vexatious litigation. See id.
Therefore, we caution Johnson that we are prepared to impose appropriate sanctions upon him
should he continue to file claims that he has previously raised or that are unsupported by a
sufficient reason for failing to raise them earlier. See id., ¶¶25-26. We will not approve the
squandering of scarce judicial resources in considering and reconsidering one individual’s claims
if those claims are frivolous, abusively repetitive, or otherwise improper. See id. Johnson
should consider himself warned.
IT IS ORDERED that the orders are summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals