CA Blank Order

Hon. John R. Race

Circuit Court Judge

Walworth County Courthouse

P.O. Box 1001

Elkhorn, WI 53121-1001

Sheila Reiff

Clerk of Circuit Court

Walworth County Courthouse

P.O. Box 1001

Elkhorn, WI 53121-1001

Daniel A. Necci

District Attorney

P.O. Box 1001

Elkhorn, WI 53121-1001

Mark S. Rosen

Rosen and Holzman

400 W. Moreland Blvd., Ste. C

Waukesha, WI 53188

Gregory M. Weber

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 7857

Madison, WI 53707-7857

Terrance Cortez Walker Jr., #M15162

Big Muddy Correctional Center

251 N. Illinois Hwy. 37

Ina, IL 62846

You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:



	2014AP288-CRNM	State of Wisconsin v. Terrance Cortez Walker, Jr. (L.C. #2009CF413)

Before Brown, C.J., Reilly and Gundrum, JJ.

Terrance Cortez Walker, Jr., appeals from a judgment convicting him of three counts of armed robbery as a party to a crime. Walker’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). Walker received a copy of the report, was advised of his 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 the following appellate issues: (1) whether Walker’s guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered; and (2) whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at sentencing.

With respect to the entry of the guilty pleas, the record shows that the circuit court engaged in a colloquy with Walker that satisfied the applicable requirements of Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(a) and State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶35, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906.[2] In addition, a signed plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form was entered into the record. This form, which the court used during its colloquy, is competent evidence of a valid plea. See State v. Moederndorfer, 141 Wis. 2d 823, 827-29, 416 N.W.2d 627 (Ct. App. 1987). We agree with counsel that any challenge to the entry of Walker’s guilty pleas would lack arguable merit.

With respect to the sentence imposed, the record reveals that the circuit court’s 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 ten years of imprisonment, the court considered the seriousness of the offenses, Walker’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, the sentence imposed, which is well within the statutory maximum, does not “shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper.” Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that a challenge to the circuit court’s decision at sentencing would lack arguable merit.

Our independent review of the record does not disclose any potentially meritorious issue for appeal. 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 Mark S. Rosen 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 Mark S. Rosen is relieved of further representation of Walker in this matter.

[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version.

[2] There are a few exceptions to this. For example, the circuit court failed to provide the deportation warning required by Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c). This failure does not present a potentially meritorious issue for appeal, as there is no indication that Walker’s pleas are likely to result in his deportation, exclusion from admission to this country, or denial of naturalization. Sec. 971.08(2). The court also failed to establish Walker’s understanding of the nature of the crime by informing him of the elements. This failure also does not present a potentially meritorious issue for appeal, as this information is clearly set forth in Walker’s signed plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form. The court explicitly referenced that form during its colloquy and confirmed that Walker had gone over its contents before signing it.