State v. David J. Beloungy

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
October 22, 2026
To:
Hon. Ellen K. Berz
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Jeff Okazaki
Clerk of Circuit Court
Dane County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
Katie Babe
Electronic Notice
Kasey Deiss
Electronic Notice
David J. Beloungy
c/o Attic Correctional Services
5706 Odana Road, Suite # 1
Madison, WI 53719
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2024AP2247-CRNM
2024AP2250-CRNM
State of Wisconsin v. David J. Beloungy (L.C. # 2023CF175)
State of Wisconsin v. David J. Beloungy (L.C. # 2023CF2562)
Before Graham, P.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).
Attorney Katie Babe, appointed counsel for David Beloungy, has filed a no-merit report
seeking to withdraw as appellate counsel. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32 and Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The no-merit report addresses whether there would be
arguable merit to a challenge to Beloungy’s pleas or sentence. Beloungy was sent a copy of the
report, but has not filed a response. Upon independently reviewing the entire record, as well as
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.

Nos. 2024AP2247-CRNM
2024AP2250-CRNM
2
the no-merit report, I agree with counsel’s assessment that there are no arguably meritorious
appellate issues. Accordingly, I affirm.
Beloungy was charged with three counts of misdemeanor theft and three counts of felony
bail jumping in these two cases. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Beloungy pled guilty to the three
misdemeanor theft charges, and the three bail jumping charges were dismissed outright. The
parties jointly recommended two years of probation, and the circuit court followed that joint
recommendation. In addition, the court followed the defense recommendation to withhold
sentence, rather than the State’s recommendation to impose and stay a 24-month jail term. The
court ordered restitution in the amount stipulated by the parties along with other conditions of
probation. Additionally, the court awarded Beloungy 26 days of sentence credit on his first case,
and 33 days of sentence credit on his second case, based on the dates he was in custody.
The no-merit report addresses whether there would be arguable merit to a challenge to
Beloungy’s pleas. A post-sentencing motion for plea withdrawal must establish that plea
withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, such as a plea that was not knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary. State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶18, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d
906. Here, the circuit court conducted a plea colloquy that, together with the plea questionnaires
that Beloungy signed, satisfied the court’s mandatory duties to personally address Beloungy and
determine information such as Beloungy’s understanding of the nature of the charges and the
range of punishments he faced, and the constitutional rights he waived by entering a plea.2 See
2 The circuit court failed to give the required immigration warnings under WIS. STAT.
§ 971.08(1)(c). However, the no-merit report states that counsel “is unaware of any possible issue related
to citizenship,” and Beloungy has not filed a response disputing that point. See State v. Negrete, 2012 WI
92, ¶26, 343 Wis. 2d 1, 819 N.W.2d 749 (to seek plea withdrawal based on lack of immigration warnings,
(continued)

Nos. 2024AP2247-CRNM
2024AP2250-CRNM
3
State v. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, ¶¶18, 30, 317 Wis. 2d 161, 765 N.W.2d 794. I agree with counsel’s
assessment that there would be no arguable merit to a challenge to Beloungy’s pleas.
The no-merit report also addresses whether there would be arguable merit to a challenge
to sentencing. The circuit court imposed the probation term jointly recommended by the parties,
and followed Beloungy’s request that the court withhold sentence rather than impose and stay a
jail term. The court ordered conditions of probation, including a ban from the University of
Wisconsin campus, and 120 days of conditional jail time that the court stayed pending
Beloungy’s compliance with conditions related to treatment, education, and employment.
Because Beloungy affirmatively approved the probation term, he may not challenge it on
appeal. See State v. Scherreiks, 153 Wis. 2d 510, 518, 451 N.W.2d 759 (Ct. App. 1989).
Additionally, I discern no arguable merit to any challenge to the circuit court’s exercise of
discretion in setting the terms of probation. See State v. Davis, 2017 WI App 55, ¶12, 377
Wis. 2d 678, 901 N.W.2d 488 (sentencing court has wide discretion to impose any conditions of
probation that appear reasonable and appropriate, measured by how well they serve the goals of
rehabilitation and protection of the community); WIS. STAT. § 973.09(4)(a) (court may require up
to one year in jail as a condition of probation).
Upon my independent review of the record, I have found no other arguable basis for
reversing the judgments of conviction. I conclude that any further appellate proceedings would
be wholly frivolous within the meaning of Anders and WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32.
a defendant must show that the plea is likely to result in deportation, exclusion from admission, or denial
of naturalization).

Nos. 2024AP2247-CRNM
2024AP2250-CRNM
4
IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Katie Babe is relieved of any further
representation of David Beloungy 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