(WLUK) -- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has denied Steven Avery’s latest appeal in connection with the murder of Teresa Halbach -- but it left the door open to hear additional issues in the future.
“We hold that Avery’s 974.06 motions are insufficient on their face to entitle him to a hearing and that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the motions to vacate and for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm,” the court wrote.
The ruling can be appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Avery is serving life prison for killing the freelance photographer in 2005.
The latest appeal dealt with a series of motions made to Sheboygan County Judge Angela Sutkiewicz, the circuit court judge now handling the case. Avery’s attorneys were seeking evidentiary hearings or a new trial, based on nearly a dozen claims, but all were denied.
In the 49-page ruling, the appeals court addressed several issues:
Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, posted on Twitter that the decision "pointed out the specific doors that are still open for Mr. Avery’s quest for freedom."
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh also reacted to the court's decision, releasing a statement:
Today’s decision thoroughly and conclusively rejects the claims made in this appeal, bringing this conviction for a terrible homicide a significant step closer to finality. Thank you to the team at Wisconsin DOJ that successfully demonstrated that this appeal was without merit.
In its conclusion, the court expanded its comments on the overall reasons for the denials:
Avery raises a variety of alternative theories about who killed Halbach and how, but as the State correctly notes, a WIS. STAT. 974.06 motion is not a vehicle to retry a case to a jury. A criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled as of right to a jury trial and, if convicted, a direct appeal. If he or she later seeks to collaterally attack the conviction on constitutional or jurisdictional grounds, a 974.06 motion is appropriate. But key to any 974.06 motion are sufficient, nonconclusory showings both as to why the issue was not raised in an earlier postconviction proceeding and why the claim has facial merit. These requirements are not optional and cannot be met through broad conclusions or by misstating evidence.
We express no opinion about who committed this crime: the jury has decided this question, and our review is confined to whether the claims before us entitle Avery to an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying hearings on Motions #1, #4, and #5; in not vacating its order on Motion #1; and in not reconsidering its ruling on Motion #1. As for Motion #6 and the portion of Motion #3 (the motion to reconsider) raising new claims, we leave open the possibility that Avery may raise these claims in a new WIS. STAT. 974.06 motion. We remind Avery, however, that he will need to overcome the Escalona-Naranjo procedural bar on these claims, which includes providing a sufficient reason for not raising them in his June 2017 motion. Moreover, Avery will need to satisfy the previously discussed specificity requirements before such claims may proceed to a hearing.
Avery's nephew Branden Dassey was also convicted in the case. All of Dassey’s appeals have been denied, as well.
Their cases received worldwide attention with the 2015 release of the Netflix series "Making A Murderer."