CA Blank Order

Hon. Jay R. Tlusty

Circuit Court Judge

Lincoln County Courthouse

1110 E. Main Street

Merrill, WI 54452

Cindy Kimmons

Clerk of Circuit Court

Lincoln County Courthouse

1110 E. Main Street, Ste. 205

Merrill, WI 54452

John C. Bachman

John Bachman Law Office

P.O. Box 477

Eau Claire, WI 54702-0477

Donald J. Dunphy

District Attorney

1110 East Main Street

Merrill, WI 54452

Gregory M. Weber

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 7857

Madison, WI 53707-7857

Roberto N. Bruce 517363

Green Bay Corr. Inst.

P.O. Box 19033

Green Bay, WI 54307-9033

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



	2013AP184-CRNM	State of Wisconsin v. Roberto N. Bruce (L. C. #2011CF18)

Before Hoover, P.J., Mangerson, J., and Thomas Cane, Reserve Judge.

Counsel for Roberto Bruce has filed a no-merit report concluding there is no basis for appealing a sentence imposed after revocation of probation. Bruce was advised of his right to respond and has not responded. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we conclude there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal.

Bruce entered a guilty plea to battery by prisoner. In exchange for his plea, several other charges were dismissed and read in. Bruce’s probation was subsequently revoked and the court sentenced him to two years’ initial confinement and one year of extended supervision.

Because this appeal arises from a judgment after revocation of probation, Bruce is barred from challenging that judgment or raising issues in this appeal that relate to the underlying conviction. See State v. Tobey, 200 Wis. 2d 781, 784, 548 N.W.2d 95 (Ct. App. 1996). Further, revocation is independent from the underlying criminal action. See State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 81 Wis. 2d 376, 384, 260 N.W.2d 727 (1978). This court’s review is limited to whether the court properly exercised its sentencing discretion.

The record discloses no arguable basis for challenging the sentencing court’s discretion. The court considered the proper sentencing factors and the sentence is not excessive or unduly harsh. See Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975).

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment after revocation of probation is summarily affirmed. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2011-12).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorney John Bachman is relieved of further representing Bruce in this matter.