|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED May 23, 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(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-2183-CR-NM
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GREGORY J. LIBKE,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for La Crosse County:
DENNIS G. MONTABON, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Counsel for Gregory Libke has filed a no merit report
pursuant to Rule 809.32, Stats.
Libke was advised of his right to respond to the report and has elected
not to respond. 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.
Libke pled guilty to
possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The court withheld acceptance of the plea and placed Libke in a
diversion program. Libke violated the
terms of the diversion agreement by allegedly committing an armed robbery.[1] The court then revoked the diversion
agreement, accepted his guilty plea and sentenced Libke to two years probation
consecutive to the fifteen-year prison sentence he received in the armed robbery
case.
The no merit report does
not address any specific issue.
Nonetheless, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
there is no potential issue for appeal.
The trial court followed
the appropriate procedures for taking the guilty plea. See State v. Bangert,
131 Wis.2d 246, 261-62, 389 N.W.2d 12, 21 (1986). The court explained the elements of the offense, reminded Libke
of the constitutional rights he waived by pleading guilty, and determined that
the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. The record discloses no basis for
challenging the plea.
There is also no basis
for challenging Libke's sentence. He
was sentenced to two-years probation consecutive to the prison term imposed for
the armed robbery. The maximum sentence
allowable was three years in prison and a $25,000 fine. The presentence report submitted at the time
of the diversion agreement recommended probation with ninety days in jail based
on Libke's attitude about this offense.
The trial court concluded that a probationary term consecutive to the
prison sentence would give the State greater control over Libke, particularly
in light of his drug and alcohol abuse problems. The sentence constitutes a reasonable exercise of the trial
court's sentencing discretion.
Our independent review
of the record discloses no other potential issues for review. Therefore, we relieve Attorney Russell
Hanson of further representing Libke in this matter and affirm the judgment of
conviction.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.