District III/II
September 24, 2014
To:
Hon. Tim A. Duket
Circuit Court Judge
Marinette County Courthouse
1926 Hall Avenue
Marinette, WI 54143
Linda Dumke-Marquardt
Clerk of Circuit Court
Marinette County Courthouse
1926 Hall Avenue
Marinette, WI 54143
Allen R. Brey
District Attorney
1926 Hall Avenue
Marinette, WI 54143-1717
Ralph Sczygelski
Sczygelski & Pangburn Law Firm, LLC
713 Washington St.
Manitowoc, WI 54220-4525
Gregory M. Weber
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
William Victor Sutrick 00587753
Prairie Du Chien Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 9900
Prairie du Chien, WI 53821
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin v. William Victor Sutrick (L.C. #2012CF119) |
|
|
|
|
Before Neubauer, P.J., Reilly and Gundrum, JJ.
William Victor Sutrick appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon his no contest pleas to two counts of burglary. Sutrick’s appellate counsel has filed a no-merit report pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32 (2011-12)[1] and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sutrick received a copy of the report, was advised of his right to file a response, and has elected not to do so. Upon consideration of the no-merit report and an independent review of the record, we conclude that the judgment may be summarily affirmed because there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
In August 2012, the State filed a criminal complaint charging Sutrick with twenty-four separate counts, all as a party to the crime and with a repeater enhancer. The charges stemmed from various burglaries, thefts and incidents of criminal damage to property occurring over a two-day period earlier that month.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Sutrick pled no contest to two burglaries, counts one and four of the complaint and identical information. On the State’s motion, the repeater enhancers on both charges were dismissed, and the remaining twenty-two counts were dismissed and read in. As to sentencing, the agreement included a joint recommendation for two consecutive five-year bifurcated sentences, each to be comprised of two years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision.[2] A presentence investigation report (PSI) was prepared and filed, and at sentencing, the court imposed two concurrent ten-year bifurcated sentences, each comprised of five years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision.
The no-merit report first
analyzes the plea-taking procedures in this case and concludes that there is no
arguably meritorious challenge to the entry of Sutrick’s pleas. Our review of the record—including the plea
questionnaire, waiver of rights form, and plea hearing transcript—confirms that
the trial court engaged in an appropriate colloquy and made the necessary
advisements and findings required by Wis.
Stat. § 971.08(1)(a), State v. Bangert, 131
We also agree with appointed
counsel’s sentencing analysis and conclude that there is no arguably
meritorious challenge to the trial court’s sentence. Each sentence was lawful in that it did not
exceed the maximum statutory penalty. In
fashioning the sentence, the court considered the seriousness of the offense,
the defendant’s character and history, and the need to protect the public. State v. Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, ¶23,
289 Wis. 2d 594, 712 N.W.2d 76. The
trial court also discussed the relevant sentencing factors under State
v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶40-44, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d
197. Further, the sentence was not so
excessive or unusual as to shock the public’s sentiment. See
Ocanas
v. State, 70
Finally, the no-merit report concludes that there is no arguably meritorious issue arising from the fact that two of Sutrick’s alleged co-conspirators were never criminally charged with these offenses. For the reasons outlined in the no-merit report, including the well-established principle that the State is granted broad discretion to make its charging decisions, we agree.
Our review of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal. Accordingly, this court accepts the no-merit report, affirms the judgment, and discharges appellate counsel of the obligation to represent Sutrick further in this appeal.
Upon the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Ralph J. Sczygelski is relieved from further representing William Victor Sutrick in this matter. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(3).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals