Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
NOTICE
DATED AND FILED
This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in the
bound volume of the Official Reports.
December 18, 1997
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
                                                                                     Marilyn L. Graves         petition  to  review  an  adverse  decision  by  the
                                                                                     Clerk, Court of Appeals   Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62,
                                                                                     of Wisconsin              STATS.
No.                                                                                  97-1700-CR-NM
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                   IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                     DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
DEMITRUS L. MAYWEATHER,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County:
PATRICK J. FIEDLER, Judge.   Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J., Vergeront and Deininger, JJ.
PER CURIAM.    Demitrus  L.  Mayweather  appeals  a  judgment
convicting him of first-degree reckless injury as party to the crime contrary to
§§ 940.23(1) and 939.05, STATS.   Mayweather received a ten-year sentence after he
entered a no contest plea.




NO(S). 97-1700-CR-NM
Mayweather’s appellate counsel filed a no merit report pursuant to
RULE 809.32, STATS., and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).   Mayweather
received a copy of the report and was advised of his right to file a response.   He has
not done so.   Upon consideration of the report and an independent review of the
record as mandated by Anders, we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any
issue  that  could  be  raised  on  appeal.    Therefore,  we  affirm  the  judgment  of
conviction.
The no merit report addresses:                                                             (1) whether trial counsel’s assistance
was ineffective;  (2) whether Mayweather’s no contest plea was properly entered;
(3) possible sentence modification; and (4) whether the trial court properly denied his
motion to dismiss Count II of the Information.   As discussed below, the no merit
report contains a correct statement of the law governing these issues and properly
applies the law to the facts.   We agree with appellate counsel that these issues do not
have arguable merit.
Our review of the record discloses that Mayweather’s no contest plea
was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered.    See State v. Bangert,  131
Wis.2d 246, 260, 389 N.W.2d 12, 20 (1986).   The court confirmed the details of the
plea agreement and that Mayweather desired to plead no contest to first-degree
reckless injury as party to the crime.   The court reviewed the elements of the crime,
advised  Mayweather  of  the  maximum  possible  punishment  for  this  crime  and
confirmed that Mayweather had signed a plea questionnaire and waiver of rights
form.   Additionally, the court reviewed the specific constitutional rights waived by
the plea and noted Mayweather’s age and the extent of his education.   Finally, the
court  ascertained  that  Mayweather  understood  the  proceedings,  confirmed  that
Mayweather’s counsel had a sufficient opportunity to discuss the plea decision with
Mayweather  and  determined  that  Mayweather  was  satisfied  with  counsel’s
2




NO(S). 97-1700-CR-NM
representation.  The court found an adequate factual basis for the plea based upon the
criminal complaint.   The court then accepted Mayweather’s plea as having been
knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered.
Based  on  the  plea  colloquy,  we  conclude  that  a  challenge  to
Mayweather’s no contest plea as unknowing or involuntary would lack arguable
merit.   Furthermore, Mayweather’s plea waived any nonjurisdictional defects and
defenses, including claimed violations of constitutional rights.   County of Racine v.
Smith, 122 Wis.2d 431, 434, 362 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Ct. App. 1984).   This waiver
would also encompass any challenge to the trial court’s refusal to dismiss Count II of
the Information, a battery charge, which Mayweather contended was a multiplicitous
charge.   See State v.Dietzen, 164 Wis.2d 205, 209-11, 474 N.W.2d 753, 755 (Ct.
App. 1991).
We have also independently reviewed the sentence.   Sentencing lies
within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a strong policy exists against
appellate interference with that discretion.   See State v. Haskins, 139 Wis.2d 257,
268, 407 N.W.2d 309, 314 (Ct. App. 1987).  The primary factors to be considered by
the trial court in sentencing are  “the gravity of the offense, the character of the
offender, and the need for protection of the public.”   State v. Harris, 119 Wis.2d
612, 623, 350 N.W.2d 633, 639 (1984) (citations omitted).  The weight to be given to
these factors is within the trial court’s discretion.   Cunningham v. State, 76 Wis.2d
277, 282, 251 N.W.2d 65, 67-68 (1977).
Our  review  of  the  sentencing  transcript  reveals  that  the  court
considered the gravity of the offense, Mayweather’s character (including his history
of  violence  and  criminal  conduct)  and  the  public’s  need  to  be  protected  from
Mayweather.  In imposing the ten-year sentence, the trial court followed the statutory
3




NO(S). 97-1700-CR-NM
guidelines and properly exercised its sentencing discretion.   Therefore, we see no
basis for seeking sentence modification.   Finally, there is no arguable merit to a
challenge  of  the  trial  court’s  determination,  after  a  Machner1  hearing,  that
Mayweather’s trial counsel was not ineffective.   See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
Our  independent  review  of  the  record  confirms  that  there  is  no
arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal.   Accordingly, we affirm
the  judgment  of  conviction  and  relieve  Attorney Gregory  N.  Dutch  of  further
representation of Demitrus L. Mayweather in this matter.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
1  A postconviction motion hearing on an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is
authorized by State v. Machner, 92 Wis.2d 797, 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).
4

Download 12612.pdf

Wisconsin Law