District III
June 25, 2013
To:
Hon. Roderick A. Cameron
Circuit Court Judge
Chippewa County Courthouse
711 N. Bridge Street
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
Karen Hepfler
Clerk of Circuit Court
Chippewa County Courthouse
711 N. Bridge Street
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
Steven H. Gibbs
District Attorney
Chippewa County District Attorneys Office
711 N. Bridge Street
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
Gregory M. Weber
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Katie R. York
Asst. State Public Defender
P. O. Box 7862
Madison, WI 53707-7862
Troy A. Stoik 156682
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. Troy A. Stoik (L. C. #2011CF314) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Hoover, P.J., Mangerson and Stark, JJ.
Counsel for Troy Stoik has filed a no-merit report pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32,[1] concluding no grounds exist for challenging Stoik’s conviction for second-degree sexual assault of a child under age sixteen, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2). Stoik 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.
A criminal complaint alleged Stoik drove a twelve-year-old girl to his residence, smoked marijuana with her, and sexually assaulted her. Stoik was charged with first-degree sexual assault of a child under age sixteen, by use of force; first-degree child sexual assault – contact with a child under age sixteen by use or threat of force or violence (actor is eighteen or older); manufacturing or delivery of THC; and possession of drug paraphernalia.
On the date of trial, a jury was selected and sworn in by the court. After voir dire, Stoik indicated he wanted to enter an Alford[2] plea to the State’s offer of second-degree sexual assault of a child. The court informed Stoik that a plea waived all nonjurisdictional defenses and defects. Stoik changed his mind and indicated he wanted a trial.
After the parties presented opening statements, Stoik entered an Alford plea to second‑degree sexual assault of a child under age sixteen, with all remaining counts dismissed and read in. The court imposed a sentence consisting of ten years’ initial confinement and four years’ extended supervision.
There is no manifest injustice upon which Stoik could withdraw his plea. See State v. Duychak, 133 Wis. 2d 307, 312, 395 N.W.2d 795 (Ct. App. 1986). The court’s plea colloquy informed Stoik of the elements of the offense, the constitutional rights he waived and the potential penalties that could be imposed. An adequate factual basis supported the conviction. The court specifically advised Stoik that it was not bound by the parties’ agreement and could impose the maximum penalties. The record shows the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. See State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 260, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). Entry of a valid plea constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and defenses.[3] Id. at 265-66.
The record also discloses no basis for challenging the court’s sentencing discretion. The court considered the proper factors, including Stoik’s character, the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public. See State v. Harris, 119 Wis. 2d 612, 623, 350 N.W.2d 633 (1984). The court characterized this matter as an extreme case of sexual assault, emphasizing Stoik’s age of forty-four and the victim’s age of twelve. The court also noted that despite his acknowledgement during the Alford plea that there was enough evidence to convince a fact-finder that he was guilty, Stoik continued to deny any wrongdoing and lacked any empathy for the victim. The court stated that Stoik’s “explanation as to how the girl’s DNA got on his penis does not add up.” The court also emphasized Stoik’s access to young people as a taxi driver. Stoik faced a maximum of twenty-five years’ initial confinement and fifteen years’ extended supervision. See Wis. Stat. §§ 948.02(2), 973.01(2)(b)3. and (d)2. The sentence imposed was far less than the maximum allowable and therefore presumptively neither harsh nor excessive. See State v. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, ¶32, 255 Wis. 2d 632, 648 N.W.2d 507.
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 Katie York is relieved of further representing Stoik in this matter. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(3).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals
[1] References to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] Referring to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
[3] The no-merit report addresses the circuit court’s denial of a motion seeking funding for a defense DNA expert. That issue was waived when Stoik entered his plea.