District I
July 14, 2015
To:
Hon. Jonathan D. Watts
Circuit Court Judge
Br. 15
821 W State St
Milwaukee, WI 53233
John Barrett
Clerk of Circuit Court
Room 114
821 W. State Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Jeffrey W. Jensen
735 W. Wisconsin Ave., 12th Fl.
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Karen A. Loebel
Asst. District Attorney
821 W. State St.
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Gregory M. Weber
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Shawn D. Jones 602515
Racine Youthful Offender Corr. Facility
P.O. Box 2500
Racine, WI 53404-2500
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin v. Shawn D. Jones (L.C. #2013CF1847) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Curley, P.J., Brennan and Bradley, JJ.
Shawn D. Jones appeals a judgment
convicting him of one count of armed robbery with threat of force, as a party
to a crime. Attorney Jeffrey W. Jensen filed a no-merit report seeking to
withdraw as appellate counsel. See Wis.
Stat. Rule 809.32 (2013-14)[1]
and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Jones
was informed of his right to file a response, but he
has not
responded. After considering the no-merit report and conducting an
independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no issues of
arguable merit that Jones could raise on appeal. Therefore, we summarily
affirm the judgment of conviction. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
The no-merit report first addresses
whether there would be arguable merit to a claim that Jones should be allowed
to withdraw his guilty plea. In order to ensure that a defendant is
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waiving the right to trial by entering
a guilty plea, the circuit court must conduct a colloquy with the defendant to
ascertain that the defendant understands the elements of the crimes to which he
is pleading guilty, the constitutional rights he is waiving by entering the
plea, and the maximum potential penalties that could be imposed. See Wis. Stat. § 971.08 and State
v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶35, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906.
Although “not intended to eliminate the need for the court to make a
record demonstrating the defendant’s understanding of the particular
information contained therein,” the circuit court may refer to a plea colloquy
and waiver-of-rights form, which the defendant has acknowledged reviewing, as
part of its inquiry, reducing “the extent and degree of the colloquy otherwise
required between the trial court and the defendant.” State v. Hoppe,
2009 WI 41, ¶42, 317 Wis. 2d 161, 765 N.W.2d 794 (citation and quotation
marks omitted).
During the plea hearing, the prosecutor
explained the plea agreement on the record and both Jones and his attorney
informed the circuit court that the agreement as stated was in accord with
their understanding. The circuit court explained to Jones that the
sentencing court was not required to follow the recommendation of either the
prosecutor or Jones’s lawyer, and could sentence him up to the maximum amount
allowed by law. See State v. Hampton, 2004 WI
107, ¶38, 274 Wis. 2d 379, 683 N.W.2d 14. Jones said he understood.
The circuit court reviewed the maximum
potential penalties Jones faced and the elements of the crime with Jones.
Jones informed the court that he understood. The circuit court
informed Jones that if he was not a citizen of the United States of America, he
could be deported if he pled guilty to the crime. See State v.
Douangmala, 2002 WI 62, ¶46, 253 Wis. 2d 173, 646
N.W.2d 1. The circuit court ascertained that Jones had read and signed
the plea questionnaire and waiver-of-rights form, and that he had reviewed the
form with his attorney and understood all of the information on the form.
The circuit court also reviewed the constitutional rights Jones was
waiving by entering the plea with Jones in person during the hearing. The
circuit court asked Jones whether he had reviewed the criminal complaint and
whether the facts alleged in the complaint were true. Jones responded
affirmatively.
The circuit court questioned Jones about
his relationship with his lawyer, asking whether Jones was satisfied with his
lawyer’s representation and whether Jones had enough time to speak with his
lawyer about the case. Jones indicated that he was satisfied with the
representation and had enough time to speak to his lawyer. Based on the
circuit court’s thorough plea colloquy with Jones, and Jones’s review of the
plea questionnaire and waiver-of-rights form, we conclude that there would be
no arguable merit to an appellate challenge to the plea.
The no-merit report next addresses whether
there would be any arguable basis for filing a motion for resentencing.
The circuit court sentenced Jones to thirteen years of imprisonment, with
seven years of initial confinement and six years of extended supervision.
In deciding the sentence, the court explained that it considered letters
from Jones’s family, which mentioned positive aspects of his character, and
listened carefully to the arguments and recommendations of
the
attorneys. The circuit court explained
that the gravity of the offense was a primary concern, noting that armed
robbery is a serious crime, and this particular armed robbery involved a home
invasion where children were present.
The circuit court also considered as aggravating the fact that Jones was
a member of a juvenile criminal gang called CDS. See Wis. Stat. § 973.017(3)(c). The circuit court said that Jones was
young—he was only seventeen when he committed this crime—and that while it
understood the defense’s argument about juvenile brain development, it had to
sentence Jones based on what he did, not based on what he was thinking. The circuit court also expressed concern that
Jones was the one in the group who pointed the gun, which was loaded, at the
woman and children who lived in the home they robbed.
Turning to Jones’s character, the circuit
court said that Jones had not adequately shown remorse and did not seem to
realize the seriousness of what he had done. The circuit court explained
that this was of particular concern because Jones was less likely to change for
the better if he did not understand how his actions impacted others. The circuit court considered appropriate
factors in deciding what length of sentence to impose and explained its
application of the various sentencing guidelines 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. Therefore, there would be no arguable
merit to an appellate challenge to the sentence.
Our independent review of the record
reveals no arguable basis for reversing the judgment of conviction.
Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction and relieve Attorney
Jeffrey W. Jensen of further representation of Jones.
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 Jeffrey W. Jensen is relieved of any further representation of Jones. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(3).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals