|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED |
NOTICE |
|
January 21, 1999 |
This opinion is subject to further
editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume
of the Official Reports. |
|
Marilyn L. Graves Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV |
|
|
|
State
of Wisconsin,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steven
V. Conlan,
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
||
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Jefferson County: jacqueline r. erwin, Judge. Affirmed.
ROGGENSACK, J.[1] Steven V. Conlan appeals from a
judgment convicting him of disorderly conduct contrary to § 947.01, Stats.
Conlan entered a no contest plea, the court withheld sentence and
placed him on probation for one year with conditions.
Conlan’s appellate
counsel filed a no merit report pursuant to Rule
809.32, Stats., and Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Conlan received a copy of the report and was advised of his right to
file a response. He has not done
so. Upon consideration of the report
and an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders, we
conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on
appeal. Therefore, we affirm the
judgment of conviction.
Our review of the
record discloses that Conlan’s no contest plea was knowingly, voluntarily and
intelligently entered. See State
v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246, 260, 389 N.W.2d 12, 20 (1986). The court confirmed that Conlan desired to
plead no contest, advised Conlan of the maximum possible punishment for the
crime, confirmed his age and the extent of his education and that he understood
the proceedings and his attorneys. The
court reviewed the elements of the crime, enumerated the various constitutional
rights Conlan would waive by his plea and confirmed that Conlan understood
those rights. The court found an
adequate factual basis for the plea based upon the allegations in the criminal
complaint. The court then accepted
Conlan’s plea as having been knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently
entered.
Based on the plea colloquy,
we conclude that a challenge to Conlan’s no contest plea as unknowing or
involuntary would lack arguable merit.
Furthermore, Conlan’s plea waived any nonjurisdictional defects and
defenses, including claimed violations of constitutional rights. See State v. Princess Cinema of
Milwaukee, Inc., 96 Wis.2d 646, 651, 292 N.W.2d 807, 810 (1980). Additionally, the plea questionnaire
and waiver of rights form Conlan signed is competent evidence of a knowing and
voluntary plea. See State v.
Moederndorfer, 141 Wis.2d 823, 827-29, 416 N.W.2d 627, 629-30 (Ct. App.
1987).
We have also
independently reviewed the sentence.
Sentencing lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a
strong policy exists against appellate interference with that discretion. See State v. Haskins, 139
Wis.2d 257, 268, 407 N.W.2d 309, 314 (Ct. App. 1987). Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals that the court
properly exercised its sentencing discretion.
We affirm the judgment
of conviction and relieve Attorney Steven D. Phillips of further representation
of Steven V. Conlan in this matter.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.