State v. Troy Justin Gordee, Sr.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT IV
July 9, 2026
To:
Hon. Barbara W. McCrory
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Amanda Nelson
Clerk of Circuit Court
Rock County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
Thomas Brady Aquino
Electronic Notice
David Zarwell
Electronic Notice
Troy Justin Gordee, Sr.
560 W. 21st Street, Lot 65
Monroe, WI 53566
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2024AP950-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Troy Justin Gordee, Sr.
(L.C. # 2021CM1120)
Before Blanchard, J.1
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Thomas Aquino, appointed counsel for Troy Gordee, Sr., has filed a no-merit report
concluding that no grounds exist to challenge Gordee’s convictions for operating while
intoxicated (OWI) as a third offense, possession of cocaine as a repeater, and misdemeanor bail
jumping as a repeater. Gordee has filed a no-merit response challenging the circuit court
decision denying his suppression motion. On this court’s independent review of the record as
mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), the court concludes that there is no
1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(f) (2023-24). All
references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2024AP950-CRNM
2
arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal. Accordingly, the judgments of
conviction are summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
The State charged Gordee with OWI as a third offense, and possession of cocaine, bail
jumping, and possession of drug paraphernalia, all as a repeater. The charges stemmed from a
search following a traffic stop for failing to come to a complete stop behind the white line at an
intersection with a flashing red light. Gordee moved to suppress the evidence that was obtained
based on the stop, arguing that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion that he failed
to properly stop at the intersection.
The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion. The arresting
officer testified that she was on patrol around 3:00 a.m. when she spotted Gordee’s car, which
was the only car on the road at that time. The officer testified that she followed Gordee through
multiple intersections, and observed Gordee fail to come to a compete stop before the white stop
line at a flashing red light. The officer’s body camera video was played at the hearing, and the
officer testified that, in person, she had a good view of the fact that Gordee failed to stop before
the white stop line and, further, that Gordee failed to come to a compete stop at any point before
proceeding through the intersection. Defense counsel argued that the video showed that
Gordee’s brake lights were illuminated long enough to indicate that he came to a complete stop
at the intersection; that he stopped before the white stop line; and that, if he did stop after the
white stop line, it was because an oncoming car was turning left into the intersection and he
needed to pull forward to get a safe vantage point around it. See WIS. STAT. § 346.46(2)(c) (“[I]f
the operator cannot efficiently observe traffic on the intersecting roadway from the stop made at
the stop line or crosswalk, the operator shall, before entering the intersection, stop the vehicle at

No. 2024AP950-CRNM
3
such point as will enable the operator to efficiently observe the traffic on the intersecting
roadway.”).
The circuit court found that the officer had a constitutional basis for the traffic stop
because she observed Gordee fail to come to a complete stop before the white stop line, as
required. The court therefore denied the suppression motion.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Gordee pled guilty to OWI as a third offense, and
possession of cocaine and misdemeanor bail jumping, both as a repeater. The paraphernalia
charge, as well as the charges in another case, were dismissed and read in for sentencing
purposes. The State and the defense jointly recommended that the circuit court impose six
months in jail and a $1,000 fine, thirty months of driver’s license revocation, and thirty months
of ignition interlock device on the OWI charge, and withhold sentence and impose two years of
probation on the cocaine and bail jumping charges, with conditions of AODA assessment and
treatment and 120 days of conditional jail time, consecutive to the OWI sentence. The circuit
court followed the joint recommendation. Following sentencing, the court awarded Gordee 104
days of sentence credit, on the parties’ stipulation.2
2 By prior order, this court noted that, although the circuit court awarded Gordee 104 days of
sentence credit, the circuit court did not issue an amended judgment of conviction reflecting that amount.
This court observed that, while the parties stipulated to the 104 days of sentence credit, nothing before
this court indicated how that amount should be applied between Gordee’s sentences. We directed counsel
to consider the issue and to file a supplemental no-merit report if he concluded that further proceedings as
to sentence credit would be wholly frivolous.
Following that order, the circuit court issued an amended judgment of conviction awarding 104
days of sentence credit, applied to Gordee’s sentence for his OWI conviction. Counsel has filed a
supplemental no-merit report concluding that there would be no arguable merit to further proceedings as
to sentence credit. We accept counsel’s no-merit report as taking the position that the sentence credit has
been properly applied to the OWI sentence. Nothing before this court would support a non-frivolous
challenge to that assessment.

No. 2024AP950-CRNM
4
The no-merit report addresses whether: the circuit court properly denied the suppression
motion; Gordee knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty pleas; and there is
any arguable merit to challenge the sentences imposed. This court agrees with counsel’s
description, analysis, and conclusion that none of these issues have arguable merit.
Gordee argues in his no-merit response that the officer was not able to properly view the
white stop line from behind his car, because she was at least 100 yards behind him and it was
dark out. He argues that he stopped twice, once at the white stop line and again after he passed
the line when an oncoming vehicle was turning into the intersection. He points out that, on the
body camera footage, his brake lights were illuminated for five seconds. However, as set forth in
the no-merit report, the circuit court was entitled to credit the officer’s testimony that she viewed
Gordee fail to stop before the white stop line. It would be wholly frivolous to argue that the
court’s factual findings, based on the officer’s testimony, were clearly erroneous. See State v.
Backstrom, 2006 WI App 114, ¶9, 293 Wis. 2d 809, 718 N.W.2d 246 (“We will uphold a trial
court’s findings of historical or evidentiary facts as long as they are not clearly erroneous.”).
Gordee also contends that the officer lied to obtain a warrant for a blood draw.
Specifically, he asserts that the officer falsely stated that Gordee was driving evasively. Rather,
Gordee contends, he was doubling back on his route because he had just dropped off a passenger
but needed to go back and return items that the passenger had mistakenly left in his car, and he
was unfamiliar with the area. Gordee did not move to suppress the results of the blood draw, and
thus the question is whether there would be arguable merit to a claim that trial counsel was
constitutionally ineffective by failing to challenge the warrant. As we explain next, this court
determines that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on that basis would be wholly
frivolous.

No. 2024AP950-CRNM
5
At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the circuit court found credible the officer’s
testimony that she observed Gordee double back on his route, which she considered evasive
driving. There is no evidence that the officer had a reason to know about the innocent
explanation for Gordee’s driving behavior. Thus, any claim that the officer made a knowingly or
recklessly false statement that Gordee’s driving was evasive prior to the stop would have failed.
See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978) (holding that a court is required to
conduct a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence when a “defendant makes a substantial
preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless
disregard for the truth, was included ... in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false
statement [was] necessary to the finding of probable cause”). Counsel was not ineffective by
failing to pursue an argument that would not have succeeded. See State v. Ziebart, 2003 WI App
258, ¶14, 268 Wis. 2d 468, 673 N.W.2d 369.
This court’s independent review of the record discloses no other potential issue for
appeal.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgments are summarily affirmed. WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Thomas Aquino is relieved of the obligation
to represent Troy Gordee, Sr., in this matter. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals