COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED August 7, 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. 95-3182-CR-NM
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT II
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSE SALAZAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
and an order of the circuit court for Kenosha County: DAVID M. BASTIANELLI, Judge.
Affirmed.
Before Anderson, P.J.,
Brown and Nettesheim, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Counsel for Jose Salazar has filed a no merit report
pursuant to Rule 809.32, Stats.
Salazar has filed a response in which he appears to allege that he was
led to believe that the maximum sentence was two years and that his interpreter
did not read him the jury instructions that were attached to the plea
advisement and waiver form. Another
person also filed a response on Salazar's behalf. 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, Salazar pled guilty to three counts of delivering cocaine to an
undercover officer. The State
dismissed, but read in, two additional counts.
The court sentenced Salazar to consecutive prison terms totaling twenty
years.
The no merit report
addresses the validity of the guilty pleas, the propriety of Salazar's sentence
and the effectiveness of his trial counsel.
We concur with counsel's analysis of these issues. Throughout the proceedings, Salazar was
provided with an interpreter. He
executed a plea advisement and waiver form that notified him, in Spanish, that
the maximum period of incarceration for the three offenses was thirty
years. Jury instructions listing the
elements of the offense were attached to the form. Although the jury instructions were written in English, the elements
were initialed by Teresa Chavez who served as an interpreter for Salazar. In addition, the court stated the elements
at the plea hearing and advised Salazar through an interpreter that he faced a
possible penalty of thirty years in prison and a $1,500,000 fine. In an extensive colloquy, the trial court
satisfied all of the requirements for accepting a guilty plea set out in State
v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246, 267-69, 389 N.W.2d 12, 26-27 (1986). The record establishes no basis for
challenging the validity of the guilty pleas.
A valid guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional
defects and defenses including claims of constitutional error. See State v. Aniton,
183 Wis.2d 125, 129, 515 N.W.2d 302, 303 (Ct. App. 1994).
The record also
establishes no basis for challenging the exercise of the trial court's
sentencing discretion. The trial court
is presumed to have acted properly in sentencing and Salazar has the burden to
prove otherwise. State v. Krueger,
119 Wis.2d 327, 336, 351 N.W.2d 738, 743 (Ct. App. 1984). The trial court considered the need to
protect the community and the collateral crimes associated with drug
problems. The court commented on Salazar's
status as an illegal alien, but only in relation to the lack of evidence regarding
his background, the ineffectiveness of deportation as a penalty, and the fact
that Salazar committed these crimes almost immediately upon arriving in
Wisconsin. The court did not consider
any improper factors and the twenty-year sentence is not so excessive as to
shock public sentiment. See Ocanas
v. State, 70 Wis.2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457, 461 (1975).
Salazar's response
suggests dissatisfaction with his trial counsel's performance. Our independent review of the record
discloses no basis for challenging counsel's performance and Salazar's
conclusory allegations are not sufficient.
See State v. Washington, 176 Wis.2d 205, 215-16,
500 N.W.2d 331, 336 (Ct. App. 1993).
Our independent review
of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of
conviction and the order denying postconviction relief and relieve Attorney
Blanca Ramirez of further representing Salazar in this matter.
By the Court.—Judgment
and order affirmed.