State v. Alexandra M. Parker

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 I
October 13, 2026
To:
Hon. J. D. Watts
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Anna Hodges
Clerk of Circuit Court
Milwaukee County Safety Building
Electronic Notice
Paul C. Dedinsky
Electronic Notice
Olivia Garman
Electronic Notice
Alexandra M. Parker
3203 45th Street
Kenosha, WI 53144
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP594-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Alexandra M. Parker (L.C. # 2022CM3290)
Before Donald, C.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).
Alexandra M. Parker appeals from a judgment, entered on her guilty plea, convicting her
on one count of misdemeanor battery as an act of domestic abuse. Appellate counsel, Olivia
Garman, has filed a no-merit report, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32. Parker was advised of her right to file a response, but she has not
responded. Upon this court’s independent review of the record, as mandated by Anders, and
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.

No. 2025AP594-CRNM
2
counsel’s report, we conclude that there are no issues of arguable merit that could be pursued on
appeal. We therefore summarily affirm the judgment. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
Milwaukee police responded to a call at a group home. S.D., a caretaker at the home,
reported that Parker, a resident, had struck another resident, C.K., on the back four or five times,
causing C.K. pain. Parker went to her room at S.D.’s instruction but returned shortly and hit
C.K. again. C.K. gave a statement to police that corroborated S.D.’s report. As police were
escorting Parker out of the home, she told C.K., “Imma beat your ass when I get out.”
Parker was charged with misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct, both as an act of
domestic abuse.2 Parker resolved her case with a guilty plea to the battery as charged. The
disorderly conduct would be dismissed and read in. An “uncharged referral” for violation of a
no-contact order would also be read in. The circuit court accepted the plea and sentenced Parker
to 180 days in the House of Correction, which it stayed for twelve months of probation.
The first issue discussed in the no-merit report is whether Parker’s plea was knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary. Our review of the record—including the plea questionnaire/waiver of
rights form and addendum and accompanying jury instructions for battery—confirms that the
circuit court complied with its obligations for taking guilty pleas, 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. We agree with counsel’s analysis
and conclusion that any challenge to the validity of Parker’s plea would lack arguable merit.
2 “Domestic abuse” includes situations involving “an act by [an] adult person … against an adult
with whom the adult person resides or formerly resided[.]” See WIS. STAT. § 973.055(1)(a)2.

No. 2025AP594-CRNM
3
The no-merit report next addresses whether there is any arguably meritorious basis for
challenging the circuit court’s sentencing discretion. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶17, 270
Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. Our review of the record confirms that the 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 six-month sentence imposed and stayed does not exceed the
nine-month range authorized by WIS. STAT. § 939.50(3)(a), see State v. Scaccio, 2000 WI App
265, ¶18, 240 Wis. 2d 95, 622 N.W.2d 449, and is not so excessive so as to shock the public’s
sentiment, see Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975). The one-year
probation term is also well within the maximum two-year term permitted by law. See WIS. STAT.
§ 973.09(2)(a)1.b. There is no arguable merit to challenging the court’s sentencing discretion.
Our independent review of the record reveals no other potential issues of arguable merit.
Upon the foregoing, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Olivia Garman is relieved of further
representation of Parker 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