State v. Stacy L. Lindert

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
November 5, 2026
To:
Hon. Kristine A. Snow
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Kelly Enright
Clerk of Circuit Court
Dodge County Justice Facility
Electronic Notice
John Blimling
Electronic Notice
Scott A. Szabrowicz
Electronic Notice
Stacy L. Lindert
418 Grant Street
Beaver Dam, WI 53916
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP1408-CRNM
2025AP1409-CRNM
2025AP1410-CRNM
State of Wisconsin v. Stacy L. Lindert (L.C. # 2021CF27)
State of Wisconsin v. Stacy L. Lindert (L.C. # 2021CF162)
State of Wisconsin v. Stacy L. Lindert (L.C. # 2021CF377)
Before Graham, P.J., Kloppenburg, and Ziegler, 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).
Stacy L. Lindert appeals judgments of conviction for charges in three consolidated cases:
possession of methamphetamine in violation of WIS. STAT. § 961.41(3g)(g) (2023-24)1 in Dodge
County Case No. 2021CF27; possession of methamphetamine in violation of § 961.41(3g)(g)
and operating under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI) as a third offense in violation of WIS.
STAT. § 346.63(1)(a) in Dodge County Case No. 2021CF162; and possession of
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

Nos. 2025AP1408-CRNM
2025AP1409-CRNM
2025AP1410-CRNM
2
methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in violation of § 961.41(1m)(e)3. in Dodge County
Case No. 2021CF377. Appellate counsel, Scott A. Szabrowicz, filed a no-merit report pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32. Lindert was advised
of her right to file a response, but she has not responded. After this court’s independent review
of the record and counsel’s report, we conclude that there are no issues of arguable merit that
could be pursued on appeal. We therefore summarily affirm the judgments.
Lindert agreed to plead no contest to the charges above in exchange for the State’s
promise to strike various enhancers and move to dismiss numerous other charges that would be
read in for sentencing purposes. The parties agreed to jointly recommend that the circuit court
order a presentence investigation report and that the State would not recommend a total period of
initial confinement longer than nine years at a contested sentencing. The court ultimately
imposed a total bifurcated sentence of nine years, consisting of four years of initial confinement
and five years of extended supervision for the offense of possession with intent to deliver
methamphetamine in Case No. 2021CF377; a concurrent three-and-one-half year bifurcated
sentence, consisting of 18 months of initial confinement and two years of extended supervision
in Case No. 2021CF27; and concurrent one-year of confinement sentences for each of the
offenses in Case No. 2021CF162, followed by one year of extended supervision on the
possession charge.2
2 The circuit court initially imposed a consecutive one-year jail sentence for the OWI offense in
Case No. 2021CF162, but it granted a letter motion from Lindert in 2024, amending the judgment of
conviction to make this sentence concurrent.

Nos. 2025AP1408-CRNM
2025AP1409-CRNM
2025AP1410-CRNM
3
The first potential issue discussed in the no-merit report is whether there is any arguably
meritorious basis for challenging Lindert’s pleas as not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary or
lacking a factual basis. This court’s review of the record—including the plea questionnaire and
the plea hearing transcript—confirms that the circuit court complied with its plea-entering
obligations pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 971.08, State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 261-62, 389
N.W.2d 12 (1986), and State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶35, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906.
The court questioned Lindert about her understanding of the proceedings and constitutional
rights, appropriately warned her about the consequences of entering a plea, and concluded that
she was “entering her pleas … freely, knowingly, intelligently, and understandingly.” This court
agrees with counsel’s analysis and conclusion that any challenge to the validity of Lindert’s no-
contest pleas would lack arguable merit.
The no-merit report also addresses whether there is any arguably meritorious basis for
challenging the circuit court’s exercise of discretion at sentencing. See State v. Gallion, 2004
WI 42, ¶17, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. This court’s review of the record confirms that
the circuit court appropriately considered relevant sentencing objectives and factors. See id.,
¶41; see also State v. Odom, 2006 WI App 145, ¶7, 294 Wis. 2d 844, 720 N.W.2d 695; State v.
Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, ¶23, 289 Wis. 2d 594, 712 N.W.2d 76. The maximum period of
initial confinement that Lindert faced on the most serious charge in these cases, possession with
intent to distribute between 10 and 50 grams of methamphetamine, was 15 years. WIS. STAT.
§ 961.41(1m)(e)3.; WIS. STAT. § 973.01(2)(b)4. The maximum period of confinement that
Lindert faced on each possession charge was 18 months. § 961.41(3g)(g); § 973.01(2)(b)9.
Finally, on the OWI charge, the court was statutorily required to sentence Lindert to between 45
days and one year in jail. WIS. STAT. § 346.65(2)(am)3. The sentences imposed were well

Nos. 2025AP1408-CRNM
2025AP1409-CRNM
2025AP1410-CRNM
4
within these limits. See State v. Scaccio, 2000 WI App 265, ¶18, 240 Wis. 2d 95, 622 N.W.2d
449 (“A sentence well within the limits of the maximum sentence is unlikely to be unduly harsh
or unconscionable.”). There is no arguable merit to challenging the court’s sentencing
discretion.
This court’s independent review of the record reveals no other potential issues of
arguable merit.
Upon the foregoing, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgments are summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Scott A. Szabrowicz is relieved of further
representation of Lindert in these matters. 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