COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED November 7, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
Nos.96-0667-CR-NM
96-0668-CR-NM
96-0669-CR-NM
96-0670-CR-NM
96-0671-CR-NM
96-0672-CR-NM
96-0673-CR-NM
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
THOMAS J. BECKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from judgments of
the circuit court for Dodge County:
ANDREW P. BISSONNETTE, Judge. Affirmed.
DYKMAN,
P.J. Thomas J. Becker appeals from judgments convicting him of
three counts of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, one count of
misdemeanor battery, and three counts of misdemeanor bail jumping,
respectively.[1] Becker entered a no contest plea to each
offense. With respect to the criminal
traffic offenses, the trial court sentenced Becker to concurrent sentences, the
maximum of which was twelve months, imposed fines and costs totalling $7,160.00,
revoked his driver's license for thirty months, and ordered his truck
seized. With respect to Becker's
misdemeanor convictions, the trial court imposed a four-month sentence
consecutive to any other sentence, imposed two concurrent three-year terms of
probation and ordered that he not possess a gun while on probation. The trial court withheld sentence in two of
the bail jumping cases.
Becker's appellate
counsel has filed a no merit report pursuant to Rule 809.32, Stats., and
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel furnished a copy of the no merit
report to Becker on July 22, 1996.
Becker has not filed a response to it.
Upon consideration of the report and an independent review of the
record, we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be
raised on appeal.
The no merit report
identifies two potential issues for appellate review in these consolidated
appeals: (1) whether the trial court erred in accepting Becker's no contest
pleas; and (2) whether the sentences imposed resulted from the trial court's
erroneous exercise of discretion, were illegal, or were based on improper
factors.
This court has reviewed
the plea colloquy between Becker and the trial court and concludes that the
requirements of § 971.08, Stats.,
and State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246, 267-72, 389 N.W.2d 12,
23-25 (1986), were met. The trial court
questioned Becker at length about his proposed no contest pleas and the various
constitutional rights that Becker would waive upon entering such pleas. Becker indicated that he understood his
rights and that his no contest pleas would waive those rights. The court discussed the maximum penalty for
each offense. The record contains a no
contest plea questionnaire, which Becker acknowledged signing. See State v. Moederndorfer,
141 Wis.2d 823, 827-28, 416 N.W.2d 627, 629-30 (Ct. App. 1987). An appellate challenge to the validity of
Becker's no contest pleas would lack arguable merit.
We now turn to the
circuit court's sentencing in this matter.
A trial court's sentencing decision involves the exercise of
discretion. McCleary v. State,
49 Wis.2d 263, 277, 182 N.W.2d 512, 519 (1971). The consideration of three factors must guide the sentencing
court: the gravity of the offense, the
character of the defendant, and the need to protect the public. State v. Wickstrom, 118 Wis.2d
339, 355, 348 N.W.2d 183, 192 (Ct. App. 1984).
A sentencing court misuses its discretion whenever it gives too much
weight to one factor without regard to contravening considerations. Harris v. State, 75 Wis.2d
513, 518, 250 N.W.2d 7, 10 (1977).
However, the court has discretion to determine the relative weight to be
accorded to each of these factors. Ocanas
v. State, 70 Wis.2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457, 461 (1975).
At sentencing, the trial
court focused almost exclusively on the seriousness and sheer volume of
Becker's offenses:
Well,
this is almost an unbelievable situation here, how many cases we've got against
Mr. Becker, how many cases are presented to the court, all with '95 prefixes,
all charged in '95. To say, Mr. Becker,
you are a one-man crime wave, I think would be understating the situation here.
Although the trial
court's explanation for its sentencing decision was thin, the record submitted
to the trial court at sentencing, including a description of Becker's history
of alcohol abuse and personal violence, offered an adequate basis upon which to
sustain the trial court's sentencing as a proper discretionary act. See Wickstrom, 118 Wis.2d at
355, 348 N.W.2d at 191. Further, the
record does not contain any evidence that the trial court based its sentencing
decisions on any improper factors or that it was "unduly harsh or
excessive." See State
v. Daniels, 117 Wis.2d 9, 22, 343 N.W.2d 411, 417-18 (Ct. App. 1983)
("A sentence well within the limits of the maximum sentence is not so
disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the public sentiment and
violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper
under the circumstances."). With
respect to the potential issues that the sentences imposed were illegal or
involved an improper calculation of sentence credit, we adopt the no merit
report's discussion of these issues as our own.
Based upon this court's
review of the record, this court is satisfied that there are no other
issues of arguable merit that Becker could raise on appeal. Therefore, the judgments of conviction are
affirmed and Attorney Margaret A. Maroney is relieved of further representation
of Becker in these appeals.
By the Court.—Judgments
affirmed.