COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED March 14, 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. 95-2430-CR-NM
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ORESTES A. RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for La Crosse County:
MICHAEL J. MULROY, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Gartzke, P.J.,
Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Counsel for Orestes Rodriguez has filed a no merit
report pursuant to Rule 809.32, Stats.
Rodriguez was informed 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.
Pursuant to a plea
agreement, Rodriguez entered a guilty plea to one count of delivering cocaine
base. The State dismissed another count
of delivering cocaine base and dropped the penalty enhancers for selling drugs
within 1000 feet of a public school and a city park and for being a habitual
offender. The second count of
delivering cocaine was read-in for sentencing purposes. The plea agreement reduced the potential
sentence to ten years. The trial court
imposed a four-year sentence.
The no merit report
addressed the propriety of the sentence.
The trial court specifically considered the nature of the offense,
Rodriguez's character and the need to protect the public. See State v. Sarabia,
118 Wis.2d 655, 673, 348 N.W.2d 527, 537 (1984). We conclude that any argument challenging the four-year sentence
would be totally lacking in arguable merit.
We have also
independently reviewed the record to determine whether there is any basis for
challenging the guilty plea. At the
plea hearing, the court reminded Rodriguez of the constitutional rights he
waived by entering a guilty plea, the elements of the offense and the potential
penalty. The court ascertained that the
plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. The trial court followed the procedures for
taking a guilty plea set out in State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246,
389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). The guilty plea
constitutes a waiver of all other nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. See State v. Olson, 127
Wis.2d 412, 418, 380 N.W.2d 375, 378 (Ct. App. 1985).
Our independent review
of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal. Therefore, we relieve Attorney Michael J.
Devanie of further representing Rodriguez in this matter and affirm the
conviction.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.