District III
April 2, 2013
To:
Hon. Jill N. Falstad
Circuit Court Judge
Marathon County Courthouse
500 Forest St.
Wausau, WI 54403-5554
Diane L. Sennholz
Clerk of Circuit Court
Marathon County Courthouse
500 Forest St.
Wausau, WI 54403
John C. Bachman
John Bachman Law Office
P.O. Box 477
Eau Claire, WI 54702-0477
Kenneth J. Heimerman
District Attorney
Marathon County Courthouse
500 Forest St.
Wausau, WI 54403-5554
Gregory M. Weber
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Kyle J. Ross 543697
Fox Lake Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 200
Fox Lake, WI 53933-0200
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin v. Kyle J. Ross (L.C. # 2011CF504) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Hoover, P.J., Mangerson, J., and Thomas Cane, Reserve Judge.
Counsel for Kyle Ross has filed a no-merit report pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32 (2011-12),[1] concluding there is no basis for challenging the sentence imposed after revocation of Ross’s probation. Ross was informed of his right to respond to the report 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. Therefore, we summarily affirm the judgment of conviction. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
In March 2012, Ross pleaded no contest to physical abuse of a child, disorderly conduct and party to the crime of criminal damage to property. The circuit court withheld sentence and imposed concurrent three-year probation terms. Ross’s probation was later revoked and the court imposed concurrent and consecutive sentences totaling six years and nine months, consisting of three years and nine months’ initial confinement followed by three years’ extended supervision.
Neither the underlying conviction nor the revocation are the subject of this appeal. See State v. Drake, 184 Wis. 2d 396, 399, 515 N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App. 1994). This court’s review is therefore limited to whether the circuit court properly exercised its sentencing discretion.
There is no arguable merit to a
claim that the circuit court improperly exercised its sentencing
discretion. Before imposing a sentence
authorized by law, the court considered the seriousness of the offenses; Ross’s
character, including his criminal history; the need to protect the public; and
the mitigating circumstances Ross raised.
See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42,
270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. Under these circumstances, it cannot
reasonably be argued that Ross’s sentence is so excessive as to shock public
sentiment. See Ocanas v. State,
70
Our independent review of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorney John C. Bachman is relieved of further representing Ross in this matter. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(3).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals