District IV
December 4, 2013
To:
Hon. Richard T. Werner
Circuit Court Judge
Rock Co. Courthouse
51 S. Main Street
Janesville, WI 53545
Eldred Mielke
Clerk of Circuit Court
Rock Co. Courthouse
51 S. Main Street
Janesville, WI 53545
Jodi D. Bollendorf
Asst. District Attorney
51 S. Main St.
Janesville, WI 53545
Shelley Fite
Assistant State Public Defender
P.O. Box 7862
Madison, WI 53707
Gregory M. Weber
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Christopher Anthony Jordan-Davis 498030
Green Bay Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 19033
Green Bay, WI 54307-9033
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin v. Christopher Anthony Jordan-Davis (L.C. # 2008CF2811) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Blanchard, P.J., Sherman and Kloppenburg, JJ.
Attorney Shelley Fite, appointed counsel for Christopher Jordan-Davis, has filed a no-merit report seeking to withdraw as appellate counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) and Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32 (2011-12).[1] The no-merit report addresses the validity of the sentence imposed by the circuit court following revocation. Jordan-Davis was provided a copy of the report, but has not filed a response. Upon independently reviewing the entire record, as well as the no-merit report, we agree with counsel’s assessment that there are no arguably meritorious appellate issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
In January 2009, Jordan-Davis was convicted of robbery with the use of force, and the court withheld sentence and imposed seven years of probation with one year of conditional jail time. In November 2011, the Department of Corrections (DOC) revoked Jordan-Davis’s probation. The court sentenced Jordan-Davis to five years of initial confinement followed by five years of extended supervision.
The appeal in this case from the
sentence following revocation does not bring the underlying conviction before
us. See
State v. Drake, 184 Wis. 2d 396, 399, 515 N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App.
1994). Additionally, the validity of the
probation revocation itself is not before us in this appeal. See State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS,
81
Our review of a sentence determination begins “with the presumption that the trial court acted reasonably, and the defendant must show some unreasonable or unjustifiable basis in the record for the sentence complained of.”[2] State v. Krueger, 119 Wis. 2d 327, 336, 351 N.W.2d 738 (Ct. App. 1984). Here, following revocation, the DOC recommended five years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision. The State and defense both recommended that the court follow the DOC’s recommendation, but the State argued that the sentence should be consecutive to Jordan-Davis’s other sentences while the defense argued for a concurrent sentence.
The court explained that it
considered the facts pertinent to the standard sentencing factors and
objectives, including the seriousness of the offense, Jordan-Davis’s character,
and the need to protect the public. See State v. Gallion, 2004
WI 42, ¶¶39-51, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. The court sentenced Jordan-Davis to five years
of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision, consecutive to
Jordan-Davis’s other sentences. The
sentence was within the applicable penalty range. See
Wis. Stat. §§ 943.32(1)(a),
939.50(3)(e), and 973.01(2)(b)5. The
sentence was not so excessive or unduly harsh as to shock the conscience. See State v. Grindemann, 2002
WI App 106, ¶31, 255
Upon our independent review of the record, we have found no other arguable basis for reversing the judgment of conviction. We conclude that any further appellate proceedings would be wholly frivolous within the meaning of Anders and Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32.
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is summarily affirmed. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Fite is relieved of any further representation of Jordan-Davis in this matter. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(3).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals