District II/I
January 9, 2015
To:
Hon. Wilbur W. Warren, III
Circuit Court Judge
Kenosha County Courthouse
912 56th Street
Kenosha, WI 53140
Rebecca Matoska-Mentink
Clerk of Circuit Court
Kenosha County Courthouse
912 56th Street
Kenosha, WI 53140
John Richard Breffeilh
Assistant State Public Defender
735 N. Water St., Ste. 912
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4105
Gregory M. Weber
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Robert D. Zapf
District Attorney
Molinaro Bldg
912 56th Street
Kenosha, WI 53140-3747
Sarah E. Wittrock
Taycheedah Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 3100
Fond du Lac, WI 54936-3100
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin v. Sarah E. Wittrock (L.C. #2000CF794) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Curley, P.J., Kessler and Brennan, JJ.
Sarah E. Wittrock appeals a judgment imposing sentence after her probation was revoked. Appellate counsel, John R. Breffeilh, 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). Wittrock was informed of her right to respond, but she has not done so. After reviewing the no-merit report and after conducting an independent review of the record, we conclude this appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. Therefore, we summarily affirm the judgment. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
The no-merit report addresses whether there would be arguable merit to a claim that the circuit court misused its discretion when it sentenced Wittrock to two consecutive six-year prison terms for forgery, with three years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision on each count. In framing Wittrock’s sentence, the circuit court explained that Wittrock had been given many chances over the years to rehabilitate herself, but that she continued to commit crimes. The circuit court concluded that it had to put Wittrock in prison because it was the only way to stop her from victimizing friends, family and strangers. The circuit court applied the various sentencing considerations in accordance with the framework set forth in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶39-46, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, and its decision was a reasonable exercise of discretion in light of the circumstances presented. There is no arguable merit to an appellate challenge to the sentence.
After independently reviewing
the record, we conclude that there are no issues of arguable merit for Wittrock
to raise on appeal. Wittrock may not
challenge the underlying judgment of conviction in the context of this appeal because
the deadline for challenging the underlying judgment has passed. See State v. Drake, 184 Wis. 2d
396, 399-400, 515 N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App. 1994).
Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction and relieve Attorney
John R. Breffeilh of further representation of Wittrock.
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney John R. Breffeilh is relieved of further representation of Wittrock in this matter. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(3).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals