COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED AUGUST 1, 1995 |
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. 95-1337-CR-NM
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RAYMOND SYKES, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
MAXINE A. WHITE, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J.,
Sullivan and Fine, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Counsel for Raymond Sykes, Jr., has filed a
no merit report pursuant to Rule
809.32, Stats. Sykes has filed a response to it. Upon our independent review of the record as
mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we
conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on
appeal.
The State charged Sykes
with three counts of armed robbery, party to the crime, and one count of
possessing a firearm as a felon. In
exchange for Sykes' no contest plea, the State agreed to drop one of the armed
robbery counts, and to recommend no more than eleven years imprisonment on each
of the remaining two. The trial court
accepted the plea and sentenced Sykes to eleven-and nine-year concurrent terms
on the armed robberies, and to a two-year concurrent prison term on the
firearms possession charge.
Counsel's no merit
report addresses whether Sykes' plea was knowing and voluntary, whether there
was an adequate factual basis for it, and whether the trial court properly
exercised its sentencing discretion. We
concur with counsel's analysis of these issues and with his conclusion that
none of these argument has merit.
In his response, Sykes
asserts that trial counsel spent insufficient time meeting with him. However, Sykes does not explain, nor does
the record show, how he would have benefited from additional time with counsel. The State's evidence that Sykes was a felon
and that he used a handgun to commit or aid in three armed robberies was
overwhelming and was not, in fact, disputed by Sykes. Counsel nevertheless obtained a plea bargain of some benefit to
Sykes, which he knowingly and voluntarily accepted. Nothing indicates that counsel could have obtained a better
bargain or an acquittal had he spent more time on the case.
Sykes also asserts that
the district attorney and counsel misled him into believing that he would receive
an eight-to-eleven-year prison sentence if he pleaded no contest. An eleven-year sentence is, in fact, what he
received, along with two lesser concurrent sentences. Even if the bargain was not fully or accurately explained before
the plea hearing, it was accurately stated on the record, with Sykes present
and acknowledging his understanding of it.
Before he pleaded, Sykes also heard the trial court's warning that he
could receive twenty-year prison terms on each armed robbery count despite the
prosecutor's nonbinding recommendation for lesser time.
Sykes lastly asserts
that the presentence investigator lied to him about her sentencing
recommendation, and did not interview his family members and character
references. However, any acts or
omissions by the presentence investigator could not have prejudiced Sykes. In sentencing him, the trial court did not
rely on the presentence report, instead citing Sykes' long and substantial
criminal record, the failure of various terms of imprisonment and probation to
modify his criminal behavior, and the facts of the crimes he committed. None of that information was disputed or
subject to dispute. If Sykes had wanted
the court to hear favorable information from family or friends, he could have
called them as witnesses at his sentencing hearing.
Our review of the record
discloses no other potential issues for appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction and relieve
Sykes' counsel of any further representation of him in this matter.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.