Before Gundrum, J.
Raphael D. Walker appeals from a
judgment convicting him of disorderly conduct.
Walker’s
appellate counsel has filed a no-merit report pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32 and Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Walker
was informed of his right to file a response but has not exercised it. Upon consideration of the no-merit report and
our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders and Rule 809.32, we conclude that
there exist no issues of arguable appellate merit and that the appeal may be
disposed of summarily. See Wis.
Stat. Rule 809.21. We affirm
the judgment of conviction and relieve Attorney Steven D. Phillips of further
representing Walker
in this matter.
Twenty-one-year-old Walker pled no contest to
misdemeanor disorderly conduct after engaging in inappropriate behavior with
his girlfriend’s then eleven-year-old daughter.
He was sentenced to sixty days in jail.
This no-merit appeal followed.
The no-merit report first
addresses whether Walker’s
no-contest plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. The record shows that the court engaged in a
thorough colloquy satisfying the requirements of State v. Brown, 2006
WI 100, ¶35, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906. We agree with counsel’s thorough analysis and
his conclusion that no issue of arguable merit could arise from the plea taking.
The report also addresses the
court’s exercise of sentencing discretion.
Sentencing is left to the discretion of the circuit court and appellate
review is limited to determining whether that discretion was erroneously
exercised. State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶17, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. The court must address the sentencing
objectives including, but not limited to, protection of the public, punishment
and rehabilitation of the defendant, and deterrence. Id.,
¶40. The court must provide a “rational and
explainable basis” for the sentence it imposes to allow this court to ensure
that discretion in fact was exercised. Id., ¶¶39,
76.
No basis exists to disturb the sentence imposed. The court weighed proper sentencing factors, applied them in a reasoned and
reasonable manner, and provided a thorough, rational explanation for imposing
the sentence it did. The court
considered Walker’s
age, that he was a new father, and recently had become employed. It also weighed the impact of Walker’s behavior on the
girl and her mother, the age disparity between him and the girl, the danger he
posed to the community, given a prior conviction for other inappropriate
behavior with a child, and the fact that he was on supervision when he
committed this crime. The court deemed
punishment the most important factor and that probation would unduly depreciate
the seriousness of the offense. Walker faced ninety days
in jail and a $1000 fine. Walker was ordered to
serve sixty days in jail, with Huber privileges, and without a fine. We cannot conclude that the imposed sentence
is so excessive or unusual so as to shock public sentiment. See
Ocanas
v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975); see also State v. Grindemann, 2002
WI App 106, ¶31, 255 Wis. 2d 632, 648 N.W.2d 507. Our review of the record discloses no
other potential issues for appeal.
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 Steven D. Phillips is relieved of further representing Walker in this matter.