State v. Delante D. Higgenbottom

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.
May 19, 2021
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff 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 Nos. 2019AP1782 Cir. Ct. Nos. 2012CF1393
2013CF270
2019AP1783

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

DELANTE D. HIGGENBOTTOM,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEALS from orders of the circuit court for Racine County:
TIMOTHY D. BOYLE, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Davis, JJ.

Per curiam opinions 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).
Nos. 2019AP1782
2019AP1783

¶1 PER CURIAM. In these consolidated cases, Delante D.
Higgenbottom appeals pro se from orders denying his postconviction motion for
relief. He contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He further
contends that he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.

¶2 Higgenbottom was convicted following a jury trial of armed robbery
as party to a crime, felon in possession of a firearm, and carrying a concealed
weapon. The charges stemmed from two separate cases that were consolidated for
trial.

¶3 In the first case, Higgenbottom was accused of participating in an
armed robbery with Ashley Ferguson and Tramell Grier. According to the
complaint, Ferguson lured the victim to a hotel parking lot where Higgenbottom
and Grier robbed him at gunpoint.

¶4 In the second case, Higgenbottom was accused of possessing a gun
that matched the victim’s description of the one used in the robbery. The weapon
was discovered under the front seat of Higgenbottom’s vehicle when he and
Ferguson were stopped by police hours after the robbery. Higgenbottom admitted
that the gun was his, and he was a convicted felon at the time.

¶5 This court affirmed Higgenbottom’s convictions on direct appeal.
State v. Higgenbottom, Nos. 2016AP457-CR and 2016AP458-CR, unpublished
slip op. (WI App May 17, 2017). In doing so, we rejected a number of arguments,
including claims that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) not challenging the initial
stop of Higgenbottom’s vehicle; (2) not questioning State’s witnesses about
inconsistencies between police reports and testimony related to items found in the

2
Nos. 2019AP1782
2019AP1783

search of the vehicle; and (3) not obtaining copies of “stale” search warrants that
would have allowed for a motion to suppress Higgenbottom’s cell phone records.

¶6 One year later, Higgenbottom filed a motion for postconviction
relief pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2019-20).1 Again, he alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel, faulting trial counsel for not challenging the initial stop and
search of his vehicle. He also faulted postconviction counsel for not raising claims
related to the State’s withholding of “void” search warrants for his cell phone
records and using that evidence at trial. Additionally, Higgenbottom complained
that his trial counsel failed to impeach a State’s witness and failed to object to the
circuit court’s use of inaccurate information.2 After a hearing on the matter, the
circuit court denied the motion. This appeal follows.

¶7 On appeal, Higgenbottom contends that the circuit court erred in
denying his postconviction motion for relief. He renews his claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel and seeks a new trial in the interest of justice.

¶8 “We need finality in our litigation.” State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185
Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Therefore, any claim that could have
been raised in a prior postconviction motion or direct appeal cannot form the basis
for a subsequent motion under WIS. STAT. § 974.06 unless the defendant
demonstrates a sufficient reason for failing to raise the claim earlier. Escalona-

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version.
2
The State’s witness was the police officer who found the gun. Higgenbottom accused
him of providing false testimony regarding the circumstances under which Higgenbottom
admitted that the gun was his. The alleged inaccurate information, meanwhile, pertained to the
officer’s reasons for asking Ferguson to get out of the vehicle during the stop. The circuit court
found these claims to be speculative and inconsequential.

3
Nos. 2019AP1782
2019AP1783

Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d at 185. Furthermore, a defendant may not relitigate a matter
previously litigated, “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).

¶9 Applying these principles, we conclude that Higgenbottom’s claims
of ineffective assistance of counsel are procedurally barred. The issues related to
the stop and search of his vehicle and the validity of the search warrants for his
cell phone records were previously raised on direct appeal and cannot be
relitigated. Id. As for the other issues raised in Higgenbottom’s postconviction
motion, he has not demonstrated a sufficient reason for failing to raise them
earlier. See Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d at 185.

¶10 Although ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel may
constitute a sufficient reason for failing to raise an available claim on direct
appeal, State v. Romero-Georgana, 2014 WI 83, ¶36, 360 Wis. 2d 522, 849
N.W.2d 668, Higgenbottom has not established that here. His postconviction
motion failed to show with specificity why and how his new claims were “clearly
stronger” than the ones actually raised by postconviction counsel. Id., ¶¶45, 46.
Likewise, it failed to reveal how he was prejudiced in light of the other evidence

4
Nos. 2019AP1782
2019AP1783

against him.3 Accordingly, we are satisfied that the circuit court properly denied
the motion.

¶11 Finally, we address Higgenbottom’s argument that he is entitled to a
new trial in the interest of justice. He asks for this relief pursuant to WIS. STAT.
§ 752.35, which allows this court to reverse a judgment “if it appears from the
record that the real controversy has not been fully tried, or that it is probable that
justice has for any reason miscarried.”

¶12 We exercise our discretionary power to grant a new trial infrequently
and judiciously. State v. Ray, 166 Wis. 2d 855, 874, 481 N.W.2d 288 (Ct. App.
1992). We have already determined that Higgenbottom’s claims were either
previously litigated or not shown to be clearly stronger than the ones raised before.
We are not convinced that the real controversy was not fully tried or that justice
miscarried. As a result, we decline to order a new trial pursuant to WIS. STAT.
§ 752.35.4

3
As noted by the State, the evidence against Higgenbottom was overwhelming. This
included (1) cell phone records placing him near the scene of the armed robbery;
(2) a surveillance video placing a man with the same distinctive coat as Higgenbottom near the
scene of the armed robbery; (3) items found in Higgenbottom’s vehicle (gun, hats, ear-warmers)
consistent with the victim’s description of what the robbers used/wore; (4) Higgenbottom’s
admission that the gun in the vehicle was his; (5) cash found in Higgenbottom’s pocket consistent
with the victim’s account of what was taken; and (6) Ferguson’s testimony against Higgenbottom.
4
To the extent we have not addressed an argument raised by Higgenbottom on appeal,
the argument is deemed rejected. See State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555, 564,
261 N.W.2d 147 (1978).

5
Nos. 2019AP1782
2019AP1783

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)5.

6