COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED October 24, 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. |
No. 96-1460-CR-NM
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WEST M. JONES,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Dane County:
MICHAEL N. NOWAKOWSKI, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Dykman, P.J.,
Vergeront and Deininger, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. After pleading no contest, West M. Jones was convicted
of fleeing an officer and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Jones's counsel filed a no merit report
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 809.32, Stats. Jones was
advised of his right to file a response, but he has not done so. After considering the report and conducting
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
addresses whether Jones's no contest plea was knowingly and voluntarily
made. Before the trial court may accept
a plea of no contest, it is required to determine that the defendant
understands the charge and its consequences and that the defendant is knowingly
waiving his constitutional rights. State
v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246, 267, 270, 389 N.W.2d 12, 23, 24
(1986). The trial court questioned
Jones at length, ascertaining that he understood the charges and consequences,
that he knew what the State would have to prove to convict him, and that he was
aware of his constitutional rights and wanted to waive them. There would be no arguable merit to
challenging the voluntariness of the plea on appeal.
The no merit report also
addresses whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in
withholding Jones's sentence and placing him on probation for two years on the
charge of fleeing an officer and imposing a $150 fine with a six-month
suspension of driving privileges on the operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated charge. The trial court
sentenced Jones upon joint recommendation of Jones and the State. A defendant may not challenge a sentence
that he has affirmatively approved. State
v. Scherreiks, 153 Wis.2d 510, 518, 451 N.W.2d 759, 762 (Ct. App.
1989). There would be no arguable merit
to raising this issue on appeal.
Our independent review
of the record reveals no other potential issues. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction and relieve
Attorney Martha Askins of further representing Jones in this matter.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.