State v. Samuel L. Griffin

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
November 10, 2021
To:
Hon. Michael J. Piontek
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Circuit Court
Racine County
Electronic Notice
Marcella De Peters
Electronic Notice
Patricia J. Hanson
Electronic Notice
Winn S. Collins
Electronic Notice
Samuel L. Griffin 73452
Redgranite Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 925
Redgranite, WI 54970-0925
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2019AP809-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Samuel L. Griffin (L.C. #2016CF724)
Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Reilly, 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).
Samuel L. Griffin appeals from a judgment convicting him of possession with intent to
deliver heroin in an amount between ten and fifty grams, possession with intent to deliver
cocaine in an amount between five and fifteen grams, and possessing a firearm as a convicted
felon. His appellate counsel filed a no-merit report pursuant to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32 (2019-
20)1 and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Griffin received a copy of the report,
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.

No. 2019AP809-CRNM
2
was advised of his right to file a response, and elected not to do so. Upon consideration of the
report and an independent review of the record, we conclude that the judgment may be
summarily affirmed because there are no arguably meritorious issues for appeal. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.21.
The State filed a complaint charging Griffin with the following five felonies: possession
with intent to deliver heroin in an amount over fifty grams, as a drug repeater (count one);
possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount between five and fifteen grams, as a drug
repeater (count two); maintaining a drug trafficking place, as a drug repeater (count three);
possession of a firearm by a felon (count four); and possession of body armor (count five). As
part of a negotiated settlement, the State filed an amended information reducing the amount of
heroin in count one to between ten and fifty grams and removing the sentencing enhancers from
counts one through four. Griffin pled guilty to counts one, two and four of the amended
information, and the other two counts were dismissed but read in. The State agreed to
recommend prison but remain silent as to the amount. Griffin was sentenced to an aggregate
bifurcated sentence totaling twenty-three years, with fifteen and one-half years of initial
confinement followed by seven and one-half years of extended supervision.2 This no-merit
appeal follows.
2 On count one, the circuit court imposed fourteen years of initial confinement followed by six
years of extended supervision. On count two, the court imposed five years of initial confinement
followed by five years of extended supervision, to run concurrent with count one. On count four, the
court imposed eighteen months of initial confinement followed by eighteen months of extended
supervision, to run consecutive.

No. 2019AP809-CRNM
3
Appointed counsel’s no-merit report addresses (1) whether the circuit court properly
determined that Griffin was competent to proceed; (2) whether Griffin’s guilty pleas were
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered; and (3) whether the circuit court properly
exercised its discretion in imposing sentence. This court is satisfied that the no-merit report
correctly analyzes the issues it raises as without merit, and this court will not discuss them
further.
Our review of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal. Accordingly, the
court accepts the no-merit report, affirms the judgment of conviction, and discharges appellate
counsel of the obligation to further represent Griffin in this appeal.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Marcella De Peters is relieved from further
representing Samuel L. Griffin 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