State v. Shaun A. Welch

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
November 4, 2021
To:
Hon. Michael R. Fitzpatrick
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Jacki Gackstatter
Clerk of Circuit Court
Rock County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
Winn S. Collins
Electronic Notice
Perry L. Folts
Electronic Notice
David R. Karpe
Electronic Notice
Shaun A. Welch 556370
Kettle Moraine Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 282
Plymouth, WI 53073-0282
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2019AP2141-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Shaun A. Welch (L.C. # 2009CF634)
Before Kloppenburg, Graham, and Nashold, 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).
Attorney David Karpe, appointed counsel for appellant Shaun Welch, has filed a no-merit
report seeking to withdraw as appellate counsel. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32 (2019-20)1 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 the sentence imposed by the circuit court. Welch was
sent a copy of the report, but has not filed a response. Upon our independent review of the entire
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.

No. 2019AP2141-CRNM
2
record, as well as the no-merit report, we agree with counsel’s assessment that there are no
arguably meritorious appellate issues.
Welch was sentenced after revocation of probation in this case on March 6, 2015. The
circuit court imposed a sentence of seven years of initial confinement and eight years of
extended supervision.
The appeal in this case from the sentence following revocation does not bring the
underlying conviction before us. See State v. Drake, 184 Wis. 2d 396, 399, 515 N.W.2d 923 (Ct.
App. 1994). Additionally, the validity of the probation revocation itself is not before us in this
appeal. See State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 81 Wis. 2d 376, 384, 260 N.W.2d 727 (1978)
(probation revocation independent from 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 petition for certiorari in circuit court). The only potential postconviction or
appellate issues at this point in the proceedings relate to sentencing following revocation.
Our review of a sentence determination begins “with the presumption that the trial court
acted reasonably, and the defendant must show some unreasonable or unjustifiable basis in the
record for the sentence complained of.”2 State v. Krueger, 119 Wis. 2d 327, 336, 351 N.W.2d
738 (Ct. App. 1984). Here, the court explained that it considered facts pertinent to the standard
sentencing factors and objectives, including the protection of the public, the gravity of the
offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42,
2 A circuit court’s duty at sentencing after revocation is the same as its duty at an original
sentencing. See State v. Wegner, 2000 WI App 231, ¶7 n.1, 239 Wis. 2d 96, 619 N.W.2d 289.

No. 2019AP2141-CRNM
3
¶¶39-46, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. The sentence was within the maximum Welch
faced and, given the facts of this case, there would be no arguable merit to a claim that the
sentence was unduly harsh or excessive. See State v. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181, ¶21, 276 Wis.
2d 224, 688 N.W.2d 20 (a sentence is unduly harsh or excessive “‘only where the sentence is 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’” (quoted source omitted)). The court granted Welch 640 days of
sentence credit, on counsel’s stipulation.
Upon our independent review of the record, we have found no other arguable basis to
disturb the sentence imposed following revocation. We conclude that any further appellate
proceedings would be wholly frivolous within the meaning of Anders and WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.32.
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney David Karpe is relieved of any further
representation of Shaun Welch in this matter. 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