Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND RELEASED
NOTICE
March 28, 1996
A party may file with the Supreme Court                                               This opinion is subject to further editing.
a petition to review an adverse decision                                              If  published,  the  official  version  will
by the Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and                                            appear  in  the  bound  volume  of  the
RULE 809.62, STATS.                                                                   Official Reports.
No.   96-0343-CR-NM
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                    IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                      DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JEFFREY A. ROGERS,
Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Clark County:
MICHAEL W. BRENNAN, Judge.  Affirmed.
DYKMAN, J.    Appellate counsel for Jeffrey A. Rogers has filed a
no merit report pursuant to RULE 809.32, STATS.   Rogers did not respond to the
report.   Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), we conclude that there is no arguable merit
to any issue that could be raised on appeal.  We therefore affirm the trial court's
judgment.




No.                                                                                      96-0343-CR-NM
A  police  officer  observed  Rogers  driving  a  tractor  without  a
proper taillight.   Upon following the vehicle, he observed Rogers run over a
road sign  and continue down the highway  without  stopping.    The  officer
stopped Rogers, who then got out of the tractor.   The officer observed him
swaying and smelled a strong odor of alcohol on Rogers's breath.   After Rogers
failed several field sobriety tests and registered a .19 reading on a breathalyzer,
the officer arrested him.
The State charged Rogers with operating a motor vehicle while
under  the  influence  of  an  intoxicant,  second  offense,  and  operating  after
revocation.  Pursuant to a plea bargain, Rogers agreed to plead no contest to the
first charge.  In exchange, the State agreed to drop the operating after revocation
charge and to recommend ninety days in jail and a $790 fine.   Upon receiving
the plea, the trial court sentenced Rogers to a thirty-day jail term and a $790
fine, and extended his license revocation sixteen months.
Counsel reasonably chose not to challenge the stop.  A person may
be arrested without a warrant for violating a traffic regulation if the traffic
officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is violating or has
violated a traffic regulation.   Section 345.22, STATS.   Here, the officer observed a
defective light and erratic driving.   After the stop, Rogers appeared obviously
inebriated.  There were no reasonable grounds to challenge the officer's action.
Rogers cannot succeed on a motion to withdraw his plea because
he knowingly and voluntarily pleaded no contest.   Before accepting the plea,
the trial court established that Rogers understood and waived his rights to a
jury trial, confrontation and protection against self-incrimination.   The court
ensured that Rogers understood the elements of the charged crime and the
potential punishment.   The court also properly inquired as to Rogers's ability to
understand the proceedings, and the record independently establishes that he
understood the proceedings.   The State did not improperly induce him to plead
no  contest  and  he  exercised  his  free  will  in  accepting  the  plea  bargain.
Although the court did not determine on the record that an adequate factual
basis existed for the charge, the record independently establishes that basis.
More specifically, the complaint sets forth a detailed description of the stop,
arrest  and  subsequent  testing.     The  proceeding  therefore  satisfied  the
requirements set forth in State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246, 261-62, 389 N.W.2d
12, 21 (1986), to ensure a knowing and voluntary plea.
-2-




No.                                                                                     96-0343-CR-NM
The trial court properly sentenced Rogers.  He could have received
a $1,000 fine and ninety days in jail.  In addition to the present offense, the court
was advised that Rogers had a very extensive record of other traffic violations.
Rogers nonetheless received a sentence substantially less than the maximum,
and less than what the State recommended.   He cannot reasonably argue that
the sentence was an unreasonable exercise of discretion.
Appellate counsel has identified no other potentially meritorious
issues.  Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders, we
also conclude that there are no other meritorious issues and that any further
proceedings would be frivolous and without arguable merit.   Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment and relieve Rogers's counsel of any further representation
of him in this appeal.   Because that ends the matter, we deny counsel's pending
motion to withdraw because Rogers has allegedly threatened her.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
-3-

Download 10343.pdf

Wisconsin Law