State v. Tyrese G. Love

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 II
November 4, 2026
To:
Hon. Eugene A. Gasiorkiewicz
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Amy Vanderhoef
Clerk of Circuit Court
Racine County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
John Blimling
Electronic Notice
Leonard D. Kachinsky
Electronic Notice
Tyrese G. Love #681455
Green Bay Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 19033
Green Bay, WI 54307-9033
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2026AP971-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Tyrese G. Love (L.C. #2022CF1361)
Before Gundrum, Grogan, and LoCoco, JJ.
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).
Tyrese G. Love appeals from a judgment, following a jury trial, convicting him of
attempted first-degree intentional homicide as a repeater with use of a dangerous weapon, first-
degree recklessly endangering safety as a repeater with use of a dangerous weapon, and felon in
possession of a firearm. His appellate counsel filed a no-merit report pursuant to WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.321 and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Love received a copy of the
report, was advised of his right to file a response, and has elected not to do so. After reviewing
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2026AP971-CRNM
2
the Record and counsel’s report, we conclude that there are no issues with arguable merit for
appeal. Therefore, we summarily affirm the judgment. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
Following an alleged argument with some high school students, Love pulled out a firearm
and started shooting at them. One of the students, “Zack,”2 was struck by the gunfire and
sustained life-threatening injuries. The other student, “James,” was not struck by any bullets.
The State charged Love with two counts of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and felon
in possession of a firearm.
At trial, Zack testified he was walking to school with his friend, James, when they came
up to a group of people. Someone from the group shot Zack but he did not know who. James
was right behind Zack when Zack was shot. Zack called 911 for himself, police arrived, and
Zack was taken to a hospital and subsequently transferred via “Flight for Life” to Children’s
Hospital of Wisconsin. An emergency room doctor testified Zack had life-threatening injuries
and was immediately transferred to surgery.
Another witness, “Annie,” testified she was walking to school with a group of people that
included Love, and, after an argument between Love and another group of students, she saw
Love pull out a gun and then heard gunshots. Love’s then-girlfriend, “Amy,” who was also with
the group that included Love, testified that she saw Love pull out a gun and start shooting at the
“guys” in the other group. Amy was also shown photographs taken inside a Kwik Trip
2 Pursuant to the policy underlying WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86(4) and WIS. STAT. § 950.04, we use
a pseudonym when referring to “Zack,” “James,” “Annie,” and “Amy.”

No. 2026AP971-CRNM
3
immediately before the shooting and identified Love as the person in their group wearing white
shoes.
An officer testified he viewed a pixelated surveillance video overlooking the parking lot
where the shooting took place. The video showed that the person in the group wearing white
shoes:
reached back towards his side, his right side or the right back part
of his waist, and then extended his arm straight forward so that it
was parallel with the ground. His arm then dropped down for a
second, then brought back up, again, parallel to the ground before
all the parties ran to the west.
The jury watched the surveillance video and saw the photographs. The officer testified that,
during an interview, Love stated he “recalled pulling a gun out and hearing shots fired. And then
he ran from that area.”
At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Love moved to dismiss. The circuit court
partially granted the motion with respect to the State’s attempted first-degree intentional
homicide charge involving James. The court reasoned that, although a material witness warrant
was issued for James, he failed to appear at trial and, without James’s testimony, it was
speculation as to whether he was in the line of fire. However, the court observed that, in regard
to James, the State had previously requested a lesser included charge of first-degree recklessly
endangering safety, and the court determined that because the evidence suggested four shots
were fired and Zack testified James was behind him at the time of the shooting, the evidence was
sufficient to support this lesser included charge. The court denied Love’s motion with respect to
the other two counts.

No. 2026AP971-CRNM
4
Love did not testify. Ultimately, the jury convicted Love of attempted first-degree
intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon, first-degree recklessly endangering safety
with use of a dangerous weapon, and felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a
cumulative sentence of 30 years’ initial confinement and 15 years’ extended supervision.3 The
circuit court also ordered Love to pay the costs associated with an attorney who was appointed
by the court after the State Public Defender could not timely appoint an attorney for Love.
Love filed a postconviction motion asking the circuit court to vacate the attorney fees
ordered in this case. The court granted Love’s postconviction motion and amended the judgment
of conviction. This no-merit appeal follows.
The no-merit report addresses whether the evidence was sufficient to support Love’s
conviction; whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion at sentencing; whether trial
counsel was ineffective; and whether the court erred in any of its various adverse rulings. We
agree with counsel’s analyses and conclusions as detailed in the no-merit report. We briefly
comment on sufficiency of the evidence and sentencing.
The no-merit report addresses whether the evidence at Love’s jury trial was sufficient to
support his convictions. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we may not substitute
our judgment for that of the jury “unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to the state and the
3 The circuit court sentenced Love to consecutive sentences of 20 years’ initial confinement and
10 years’ extended supervision on the attempted-first-degree-intentional-homicide-as-a-repeater-with-use-
of-a-dangerous-weapon count and 10 years’ initial confinement and 5 years’ extended supervision on the
first-degree-recklessly-endangering-safety-as-a-repeater-with-use-of-a-dangerous-weapon count. On the
felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm count, the court sentenced Love to 4 years’ initial confinement and 4
years’ extended supervision, concurrent to the sentences on the two other charges, but consecutive to any
other sentence.

No. 2026AP971-CRNM
5
conviction, is so lacking in probative value and force that no trier of fact, acting reasonably,
could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507,
451 N.W.2d 752 (1990). Our review of the Record persuades us that the State produced ample
evidence to convict Love of his crimes.
As for attempted first-degree intentional homicide, the evidence introduced at trial
established that Love intended to kill Zack by shooting a firearm at him, and but for the life
saving measures provided by first-responders and hospital personnel, Love would have killed
Zack. See WIS. STAT. §§ 939.32, 940.01(1)(a); WIS JI—CRIMINAL 1070. In regard to James and
the first-degree recklessly endangering safety conviction, the evidence introduced at trial
established Love endangered James’s safety by shooting a firearm in James’s direction because
of an alleged verbal argument. See WIS. STAT. § 941.30(1); WIS JI—CRIMINAL 1345. The
evidence also established Love committed both crimes with a firearm. See WIS. STAT. § 939.63.
Finally, as for felon in possession of a firearm, Love stipulated he was a felon as of the date of
the offense,4 and both Amy and Annie testified Love had a firearm that day. See WIS. STAT.
§ 941.29(1m); WIS JI—CRIMINAL 1343. Based on all the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict,
we agree with counsel that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence would lack arguable
merit.
The no-merit report also addresses whether the circuit court properly exercised its
discretion at sentencing. The Record reveals that the court’s sentencing decision had a “rational
and explainable basis.” See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶76, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d
4 Love personally stipulated that he was convicted of a felony in Racine County Circuit Court
Case No. 2018CF1760.

No. 2026AP971-CRNM
6
197 (citation omitted). Moreover, the sentence imposed does not “shock public sentiment and
violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under the
circumstances.” See Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975). We agree
with counsel that a challenge to Love’s sentence would lack arguable merit.
Our independent review of the Record—including jury selection, jury instructions,
Love’s waiver of his right to testify, and closing arguments—does not disclose any potentially
meritorious issue for appeal. Because we conclude that there would be no arguable merit to any
issue that could be raised on appeal, we accept the no-merit report and relieve Attorney Leonard
D. Kachinsky of further representation in this matter.
Upon the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Leonard D. Kachinsky is relieved of further
representation of Tyrese G. Love 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