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.
January 29, 1998
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.                                                                                  97-2400-CR-NM
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                   IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                     DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
STEVEN T. GEARY,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County:
DANIEL MOESER, Judge.  Affirmed.
Before Dykman, P.J., Vergeront and Deininger, JJ.
PER CURIAM.    Counsel for Steven T. Geary has filed a no merit
report pursuant to RULE 809.32, STATS.   Geary has not responded to the report.
Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (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. 97-2400-CR-NM
The State charged Geary with interfering with fire fighting, contrary
to § 941.12(1), STATS., and resisting an officer, contrary to § 946.41(1), STATS.
The case was tried before a jury.   Witnesses described how Geary blocked the path
of a firefighter and yelled in his face while the firefighter was trying to put out a
bonfire at the 1996 Mifflin Street Block Party.   The witnesses also described how
Geary struggled and resisted when police officers attempted to remove him from
the scene and arrest him.   Geary admitted his presence at the scene, but denied that
he harassed the firefighter or resisted arrest.    The jury nevertheless found him
guilty on both charges.   For resisting arrest, the trial court sentenced him to thirty
days in jail with nineteen days of sentence credit.   On the interference charge, the
trial court sentenced him to a six-month consecutive jail sentence, with all but
thirty days suspended if Geary completed an alcohol treatment program.
The jury heard sufficient evidence to convict Geary.   We affirm a
conviction if the evidence, when viewed most favorably to the verdict, would
allow a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   See Fells v. State,
65 Wis.2d  525,  529,  223 N.W.2d  507,  510  (1974).    Here, the issue was very
straight  forward.    Either  the  jury  believed  the  testifying  police  officers  and
firefighters, in which case Geary’s guilt on both counts was plainly established
beyond a reasonable doubt, or it believed Geary.   The jury evidently believed the
testifying officers, and its decision on their credibility is not subject to review.   See
State v. Toy, 125 Wis.2d 216, 222, 371 N.W.2d 386, 389 (Ct. App. 1985).
The  trial  court  properly  exercised  its  sentencing  discretion.
Sentencing lies within the trial court’s discretion, and a strong public 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  trial court is
presumed to have acted reasonably, and the defendant has the burden to show
2




NO. 97-2400-CR-NM
unreasonableness from the record.   Id.   Here, the trial court stated that it would
have placed Geary on probation had Geary not refused that option on the record.
Instead, Geary requested a thirty-day jail sentence.   The maximum prison time
Geary faced was two years and nine months.    Under these circumstances, and
given Geary’s previous record and the nature of his conduct, he cannot reasonably
contend that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence.   Additionally, not only
did the trial court consider proper factors, but it fully explained its reliance on
them at the sentencing hearing.
Appellate counsel identifies no other potentially meritorious issues.
Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), we also identify no other potentially meritorious issues.   Any
further  proceedings  would  therefore  be  frivolous  and  without  arguable  merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction and relieve Geary’s counsel of
any further representation of him in this matter.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
3

Download 12908.pdf

Wisconsin Law