CA Blank Order

Hon. Terence T. Bourke

Circuit Court Judge

Sheboygan County Courthouse

615 N. 6th Street

Sheboygan, WI 53081

Nan Todd

Clerk of Circuit Court

Sheboygan County Courthouse

615 N. 6th Street

Sheboygan, WI 53081

Joseph R. DeCecco

District Attorney

615 N. 6th Street

Sheboygan, WI 53081

Suzanne L. Hagopian

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

Blake A. Murphy 577984

Prairie Du Chien Corr. Inst.

P.O. Box 9900

Prairie du Chien, WI 53821

Before Brown, C.J., Neubauer, P.J., and Reilly, J.

Blake Murphy appeals from a judgment convicting him of possessing heroin with intent to deliver contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.41(1m)(d)1. (2011-12).[1] Murphy’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit report pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32 and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Murphy received a copy of the report and was advised of his right to file a response. He has not done so. Upon consideration of the report and an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders and Rule 809.32, we summarily affirm the judgment because there are no issues that would have arguable merit for appeal. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.

The no-merit report addresses the following possible appellate issues: (1) whether Murphy’s no contest plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered and had a factual basis; and (2) whether the circuit court misused its sentencing discretion. We agree with appellate counsel that these issues do not have arguable merit for appeal.

With regard to the entry of his no contest plea, Murphy answered questions about the plea and his understanding of his constitutional rights during a colloquy with the circuit court that complied with State v. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, ¶18, 317 Wis. 2d 161, 765 N.W.2d 794. The record discloses that Murphy’s no contest plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 260, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), and that it had a factual basis, State v. Harrington, 181 Wis. 2d 985, 989, 512 N.W.2d 261 (Ct. App. 1994). Additionally, the plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form Murphy signed is competent evidence of a knowing and voluntary plea. State v. Moederndorfer, 141 Wis. 2d 823, 827-29, 416 N.W.2d 627 (Ct. App. 1987). Although a plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form may not be relied upon as a substitute for a substantive in-court personal colloquy, it may be referred to and used at the plea hearing to ascertain the defendant’s understanding and knowledge at the time a plea is taken. Hoppe, 317 Wis. 2d 161, ¶¶30-32. We agree with appellate counsel that there would be no arguable merit to a challenge to the entry of Murphy’s no contest plea.

With regard to the sentence, the record reveals that the sentencing court’s discretionary decision had a “rational and explainable basis.” State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶76, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197 (citation omitted). The court adequately discussed the facts and factors relevant to sentencing Murphy to a five and one-half year term (two and one-half years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision). In fashioning the sentence, the court considered the seriousness of the offense, Murphy’s character, history of other offenses and previous failure on probation, the need to protect the public, deter others and punish and rehabilitate Murphy. State v. Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, ¶23, 289 Wis. 2d 594, 712 N.W.2d 76. The felony sentence complied with Wis. Stat. § 973.01 relating to the imposition of a bifurcated sentence of confinement and extended supervision. We agree with appellate counsel that there would be no arguable merit to a challenge to the sentence.

In addition to the issues discussed above, we have independently reviewed the record. Our independent review of the record did 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, affirm the judgment of conviction and relieve Attorney Suzanne Hagopian of further representation of Murphy 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 Suzanne Hagopian is relieved of further representation of Blake Murphy in this matter.

[1] All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise noted.



	2013AP2008-CRNM	State of Wisconsin v. Blake A. Murphy (L.C. # 2012CF288)