State v. Dawn Marie Astudillo

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 21, 2026
To:
Hon. Rebecca L. Persick
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Chris Koenig
Clerk of Circuit Court
Sheboygan County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
John Blimling
Electronic Notice
Gregory Bates
Electronic Notice
Dawn Marie Astudillo, #734026
Robert Ellsworth Correctional Center
21425-A Spring St.
Union Grove, WI 53182-9408
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP2529-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Dawn Marie Astudillo (L.C. #2024CF239)
Before Lazar, P.J., Gundrum, 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 this appeal from a conviction for causing mental harm to a child, appointed counsel for
Dawn Marie Astudillo has filed a no-merit report pursuant to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32 (2023-
24)1 and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel provided Astudillo with a copy of
the report, and both counsel and this court advised her of her right to file a response. Astudillo
has not responded. Based on our independent review of the Record, we agree with appointed
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2025AP2529-CRNM
2
counsel’s conclusion that there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the judgment and order.
The State charged Astudillo with several offenses stemming from the mistreatment of her
nine-year old child—who was reportedly malnourished, failing to thrive, and not receiving
adequate medical or dental care—and of the family dog. After reaching an agreement with the
State, Astudillo entered a plea of no contest to an amended count of causing mental harm to a
child. See WIS. STAT. §§ 948.04(1), 939.50(3)(f). The remaining five counts were dismissed and
read in, including one count of neglecting her child and several misdemeanor counts related to
the dog.
The circuit court imposed a sentence of six years of initial confinement and five years of
extended supervision. Through counsel, Astudillo then filed a postconviction motion seeking a
resentencing or sentence modification based on a “new factor” that was not known at the time of
sentencing. The court denied the motion, finding that it was aware of some of the purportedly
new information at the time of sentencing. The court found the remainder of the information
Astudillo presented in her postconviction motion was either contrary to the evidence before the
court or otherwise was not credible and would have had no impact on the court’s sentencing
decision. This no-merit appeal follows.
The no-merit report discusses four issues: (1) whether Astudillo’s no-contest plea was
voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; (2) whether there were any pretrial errors that could be
challenged on appeal; (3) whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its sentencing
discretion; and (4) whether the court erred in denying Astudillo’s postconviction motion. We
briefly discuss each issue in turn below.

No. 2025AP2529-CRNM
3
The no-merit report satisfies this court that the plea colloquy sufficiently complied with
the requirements of State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶35, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906, and
WIS. STAT. § 971.08 concerning the nature of the charge, the rights Astudillo was waiving, and
other related matters. To expound briefly, in order to withdraw a plea after sentencing, a
defendant either must show that the plea colloquy was defective in a manner that resulted in the
defendant actually entering an unknowing plea, or demonstrate some other manifest injustice
such as coercion, the lack of a factual basis to support the charge, ineffective assistance of
counsel, or failure by the prosecutor to fulfill the plea agreement. State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d
246, 272-76, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986); State v. Krieger, 163 Wis. 2d 241, 249-51 & n.6, 471
N.W.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1991). There is no indication of any such defect here. The Record shows
no other ground to withdraw the plea, nor any ineffective assistance of trial counsel related to the
plea. There is no arguable merit to this issue.
The report next discusses whether there would be arguable merit to an appeal based on
any pretrial rulings or issues. The report identifies no jurisdictional defects, and further correctly
observes that a valid guilty or no-contest plea results in the waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects
and defenses. See State v. DeWitt, 2008 WI App 134, ¶10, 313 Wis. 2d 794, 758 N.W.2d 201.
We conclude there is no arguable merit to an appeal based on any pretrial issues.
The no-merit report also addresses whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its
sentencing discretion. The standards for the circuit court and this court on sentencing issues are
well-established and need not be repeated here. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶17-51, 270
Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. In this case, the court considered appropriate factors, did not
consider improper factors, and reached a reasonable result. The sentence imposed was less than
the maximum penalty available and cannot be said to shock public sentiment. See Ocanas v.

No. 2025AP2529-CRNM
4
State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975). There is no arguable merit to an appeal
from the sentence imposed.
As to the fourth issue raised in the no-merit report, appointed counsel similarly concludes
that there are no issues of potential merit related to the circuit court’s denial of Astudillo’s
postconviction motion. To repeat, Astudillo sought a sentence adjustment. The defense argued
that overlooked evidence, such as bank statements showing the child was taken to restaurants
and otherwise well-cared for and the defendant’s own history of trauma, constituted a “new
factor” justifying a lighter sentence. See State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28, ¶¶36-37, 333 Wis. 2d 53,
797 N.W.2d 828. The court reiterated concerns it had raised at the sentencing hearing, noting
that Astudillo’s explanations remained “absurd” and that her “abusive, dishonest, and
manipulative” character continued to make her a danger to the community. We agree with the
conclusion in the report that any challenge to the court’s denial of the motion is without potential
merit.
Finally, our independent review of the Record does not disclose any issues of arguable
merit for appeal. See State v. Allen, 2010 WI 89, ¶¶81-82, 328 Wis. 2d 1, 786 N.W.2d 124. We
conclude that any further appellate proceedings would be wholly frivolous within the meaning of
Anders and WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32.
Upon the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment and the order of the circuit court are summarily
affirmed. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.

No. 2025AP2529-CRNM
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Gregory Bates is relieved from further
representing Dawn Marie Astudillo in this appeal. 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