State v. Richard D. Douglas

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
October 20, 2021
To:
Hon. Jerilyn M. Dietz
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Lynn Zigmunt
Clerk of Circuit Court
Manitowoc County
Electronic Notice
Erica L. Bauer
Electronic Notice
Winn S. Collins
Electronic Notice
Jacalyn C. LaBre
Electronic Notice
Richard D. Douglas, #516208
Oshkosh Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 3310
Oshkosh, WI 54903-3310
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2020AP1017-CRNM
2020AP1018-CRNM
2020AP1019-CRNM
2020AP1020-CRNM
2020AP1021-CRNM
2020AP1130-CRNM
2020AP1175-CRNM
2020AP1176-CRNM
State of Wisconsin v. Richard D. Douglas (L.C. #2018CF34)
State of Wisconsin v. Richard D. Douglas (L.C. #2018CT330)
State of Wisconsin v. Richard D. Douglas (L.C. #2018CT358)
State of Wisconsin v. Richard D. Douglas (L.C. #2018CF745)
State of Wisconsin v. Richard D. Douglas (L.C. #2018CT372)
State of Wisconsin v. Richard D. Douglas (L.C. #2019CF20)
State of Wisconsin v. Richard D. Douglas (L.C. #2017CF641)
State of Wisconsin v. Richard D. Douglas (L.C. #2018CF165)
Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Grogan, 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).
In these consolidated cases, Richard D. Douglas appeals judgments of conviction for one
count of strangulation, one count of contact with a victim after a domestic abuse arrest, two
counts of battery, five counts of bail jumping, and three counts of operating after revocation.
Douglas’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a no-merit report pursuant to WIS. STAT.

Nos. 2020AP1017-CRNM
2020AP1018-CRNM
2020AP1019-CRNM
2020AP1020-CRNM
2020AP1021-CRNM
2020AP1130-CRNM
2020AP1175-CRNM
2020AP1176-CRNM
2
RULE 809.32 (2019-20),1 and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Douglas was advised
of his right to file a response but has not done so. Upon consideration of the no-merit report and
an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders and RULE 809.32, we summarily
affirm the judgments because we conclude there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be
raised on appeal. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
These appeals encompass several circuit court cases that proceeded together at a
combined plea hearing and at sentencing. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Douglas
entered an Alford2 plea to the strangulation charge and entered no contest pleas to the other
eleven charges listed above. The State agreed that a number of other charges would be
dismissed and read in at sentencing. The State also agreed to recommend no more than a total of
sixty days’ jail time on the operating after revocation charges, consecutive to whatever other
sentences the circuit court would impose. The parties were otherwise free to argue at sentencing.
The circuit court accepted the parties’ plea agreement and sentenced Douglas as follows:
three years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision on the strangulation
charge; nine months of jail time on the contact after a domestic abuse arrest charge and each of
the two battery charges, with these sentences imposed consecutive to one another and to the
strangulation charge; a five-year imposed and stayed sentence on each of the five bail-jumping
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.
2 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

Nos. 2020AP1017-CRNM
2020AP1018-CRNM
2020AP1019-CRNM
2020AP1020-CRNM
2020AP1021-CRNM
2020AP1130-CRNM
2020AP1175-CRNM
2020AP1176-CRNM
3
charges, with Douglas to serve a three-year term of probation consecutive to his total
confinement time;3 and costs on the three operating after revocation charges.
The no-merit report addresses whether Douglas’s Alford plea and no contest pleas were
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and also whether there is any other basis for Douglas to
challenge his pleas. We agree with counsel that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for Douglas
to challenge his pleas. The circuit court’s plea colloquy, including the court’s references to the
plea questionnaire and waiver of rights forms, sufficiently complied with the requirements of
WIS. STAT. § 971.08 and State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶35, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906,
relating to the nature of the charges, the maximum penalties, the rights that Douglas was
waiving, and other matters. The circuit court explained the effect of an Alford plea to Douglas,
and the court found strong evidence of guilt before accepting Douglas’s Alford plea. We see no
other arguable basis for Douglas to seek plea withdrawal.4
The no-merit report next addresses whether the circuit court properly exercised its
sentencing discretion, and also whether there is any other basis for Douglas to challenge his
3 The court made the sentences on the five bail-jumping charges concurrent to one another.
4 As counsel explains in the no-merit report, the plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form for
the strangulation charge stated an incorrect maximum penalty. However, this error was rectified during
the plea hearing when it was identified on the record and Douglas stated that he understood the correct
maximum penalty. The plea form also listed an incorrect statutory section number for the strangulation
charge. However, the jury instructions attached to the form correctly stated the section number and the
elements of strangulation, and the circuit court correctly identified the charge and elements during
Douglas’s plea colloquy. Accordingly, we see no arguable merit to pursuing relief based on these errors
on the form.

Nos. 2020AP1017-CRNM
2020AP1018-CRNM
2020AP1019-CRNM
2020AP1020-CRNM
2020AP1021-CRNM
2020AP1130-CRNM
2020AP1175-CRNM
2020AP1176-CRNM
4
sentences. We agree with counsel that there is no nonfrivolous basis to challenge the sentences.
The circuit court discussed the required sentencing factors along with other relevant factors. See
State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶37-49, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. The court did not
consider any improper factors. Each sentence was at or within the maximum allowed and, when
viewed as a whole, the sentences were well within the maximum penalty that Douglas could
have received. Douglas could not plausibly argue that the sentences were unduly harsh or so
excessive as to shock public sentiment. See Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d
457 (1975). We see no other arguable basis for Douglas to challenge his sentences.
Based upon our independent review of the record, we have not identified any other
arguable basis for reversing the judgments of conviction. We conclude that any further appellate
proceedings would be wholly frivolous within the meaning of Anders and WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.32.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the circuit court are summarily affirmed. See
WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.

Nos. 2020AP1017-CRNM
2020AP1018-CRNM
2020AP1019-CRNM
2020AP1020-CRNM
2020AP1021-CRNM
2020AP1130-CRNM
2020AP1175-CRNM
2020AP1176-CRNM
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Erica L. Bauer is relieved from further
representing Richard D. Douglas in this appeal. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals