State v. Devon A. Sheriff

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
August 12, 2026
To:
Hon. William J. Domina
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Monica Paz
Clerk of Circuit Court
Waukesha County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
John Blimling
Electronic Notice
Leonard D. Kachinsky
Electronic Notice
Devon A. Sheriff #462866
John C. Burke Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 900
Waupun, WI 53963-0900
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2024AP1813-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Devon A. Sheriff (L.C. #2020CF302)
Before Lazar, P.J., Gundrum, and LoCoco, 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).
Devon A. Sheriff appeals from a judgment of the circuit court sentencing him to prison
following the revocation of his probation on his conviction of manufacturing or delivering
between 200 and 1000 grams of THC, as a second and subsequent offense and as party to a
crime (PTAC). Attorney Leonard D. Kachinsky has filed a no-merit report indicating there are
no arguably meritorious issues for appellate review and seeking to withdraw as appellate
counsel. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32 (2023-24);1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2024AP1813-CRNM
2
(1967); and State ex rel. McCoy v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 137 Wis. 2d 90,
403 N.W.2d 449 (1987), aff’d, 486 U.S. 429. Sheriff filed a response to the no-merit report.
Appointed counsel filed a supplemental report addressing Sheriff’s response, and Sheriff has
filed a supplemental response. Upon reviewing the entire record, as well as the no-merit report,
response, supplemental no-merit report, and supplemental response, we conclude that there are
no arguably meritorious appellate issues. We summarily affirm.
We first note that an appeal from a sentence following revocation does not bring an
underlying conviction before this court. State v. Drake, 184 Wis. 2d 396, 399, 515 N.W.2d 923
(Ct. App. 1994). Nor can an appellant challenge the validity of any probation revocation
decision in this proceeding. See State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 81 Wis. 2d 376, 384, 260
N.W.2d 727 (1978) (probation revocation is independent from the underlying criminal action);
see also State ex rel. Johnson v. Cady, 50 Wis. 2d 540, 550, 185 N.W.2d 306 (1971) (judicial
review of probation revocation is by way of certiorari to the court of conviction). As the no-
merit report properly observes, the only potential issue for appeal is the circuit court’s imposition
of sentence following revocation.2
Our review of a sentence determination begins “with the presumption that the [circuit]
court acted reasonably, and the defendant must show some unreasonable or unjustifiable basis in
the record for the sentence.” State v. Krueger, 119 Wis. 2d 327, 336, 351 N.W.2d 738 (Ct. App.
1984). Here, the record shows that Sheriff was afforded the opportunities to comment on his
revocation proceedings and to address the court prior to sentencing, which he did. The circuit
2 Sheriff raises numerous issues in his responses, but few of them are subject to review by this
court, as noted, and none of them presents an issue of arguable merit for appeal.

No. 2024AP1813-CRNM
3
court considered the standard sentencing factors and explained their application to this case. See
generally State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶39-46, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197.
Specifically, the circuit court here commented on the dangerousness of selling drugs
because of the close connection between drugs and guns. The court spoke of the risks that drug
behavior created not just for Sheriff and his associates, but also for the general public. The court
observed that Sheriff had been associating with bad people and had been in and out of
correctional facilities since he was a teenager. Moreover, Sheriff failed to accept responsibility
for his criminal conduct, repeatedly complaining that the system was rigged against him. In
addition, Sheriff was considered a high risk to reoffend, and historically, he had been
unsuccessful on probation and extended supervision, resulting in his revocation multiple times.
The circuit court then sentenced Sheriff to four years of initial confinement and three
years of extended supervision. It also imposed standard costs and conditions of supervision, and
awarded 887 days of sentence credit. Finally, the court found that Sheriff should not be eligible
for the Challenge Incarceration Program or Substance Abuse Program, both of which provide an
opportunity for a shorter term of confinement, primarily because of his lengthy criminal record.
The sentence the circuit court imposed is within the applicable penalty range, and
constituted considerably less than the maximum exposure of ten years Sheriff faced. See WIS.
STAT. §§ 961.41(1)(h)2. (classifying manufacture or delivery of 200-1000 grams of THC as a
Class H felony); 939.50(3)(h) (providing maximum imprisonment term of six years for Class H
felonies); 961.48(1)(b) (providing maximum sentence may be increased by four years if
defendant was convicted of another drug offense prior to conviction on the current offense); and
973.01 (explaining bifurcated sentence structure). There is a presumption that a sentence “well

No. 2024AP1813-CRNM
4
within the limits of the maximum sentence” is not unduly harsh, and the sentence totaling seven
years of imprisonment imposed here is not “so excessive and unusual and so disproportionate to
the offense committed as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable
people concerning what is right and proper under the circumstances.” See State v. Grindemann,
2002 WI App 106, ¶31-32, 255 Wis. 2d 632, 648 N.W.2d 507.
Upon our independent review of the record, we have found no other arguable basis for
reversing the judgment. 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. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Leonard D. Kachinsky is relieved of any
further representation of Devon A. Sheriff 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