District II
August 28, 2013
To:
Hon. Robert J. Wirtz
Circuit Court Judge
Fond du Lac County Courthouse
160 South Macy Street
Fond du Lac, WI 54935
Ramona Geib
Clerk of Circuit Court
Fond du Lac County Courthouse
160 South Macy Street
Fond du Lac, WI 54935
Angela Dawn Dirden
P.O. Box 22424
Green Bay, WI 54305
Eric Toney
District Attorney
Fond du Lac County
160 South Macy Street
Fond du Lac, WI 54935
Gregory M. Weber
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Bobbi A. Altman
Robert Ellsworth Corr. Cntr
21425-A Spring Street
Union Grove, WI 53182-9408
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin v. Bobbi A. Altman (L.C. # 2000CF108) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Brown, C.J., Neubauer, P.J., and Gundrum, J.
Bobbi A. Altman appeals from a judgment sentencing her after revocation of her probation for two counts of maintaining a drug trafficking place, as a party to a crime. Altman’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit report pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32 (2011-12)[1] and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Altman received a copy of the report, was advised of her right to file a response, and has elected not to do so. After reviewing the record and counsel’s report, we conclude that there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Therefore, we summarily affirm the judgment. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
The no-merit report addresses whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in imposing its sentences after revocation. The circuit court’s duty at sentencing after probation revocation is the same as its duty at the original sentencing. State v. Wegner, 2000 WI App 231, ¶7 n.1, 239 Wis. 2d 96, 619 N.W.2d 289.
Here, the record reveals that the circuit court’s sentencing decision had a “rational and explainable basis.” State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶76, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. In imposing an aggregate sentence of three years of imprisonment, the court considered the seriousness of the offense, Altman’s character, and the need to protect the public. State v. Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, ¶23, 289 Wis. 2d 594, 712 N.W.2d 76. Under the circumstances of the case, which were aggravated by Altman’s absconding from probation and use of cocaine while on supervision, the sentencing decision does not “shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper.” See Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975). We agree with counsel that a challenge to Altman’s sentences would lack arguable merit.
Our independent review of the record does not disclose any potentially meritorious issue for appeal.[2] Because we conclude that there would be no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal, we accept the no-merit report and relieve Attorney Angela D. Dirden of further representation in this matter.
Upon the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit court is summarily affirmed pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Angela D. Dirden is relieved of further representation of Altman in this matter.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals
[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version.
[2] Any challenge to the underlying convictions of maintaining a drug trafficking place, as a party to a crime, is outside the scope of this appeal. See State ex rel. Marth v. Smith, 224 Wis. 2d 578, 582 n.5, 592 N.W.2d 307 (Ct. App. 1999).