State v. Kenneth D. Wright

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 6, 2026
To:
Hon. David C. Swanson
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Anna Hodges
Clerk of Circuit Court
Milwaukee County Safety Building
Electronic Notice
John Blimling
Electronic Notice
Leonard D. Kachinsky
Electronic Notice
Kenneth D. Wright 695725
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:
2025AP1681-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Kenneth D. Wright (L.C. # 2021CF4389)
Before Donald, C.J., Colón, P.J., and Geenen, J.
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).
Kenneth D. Wright appeals from his judgment of conviction for second-degree reckless
homicide and violating a no contact order. His appellate counsel, Attorney Leonard D.
Kachinsky, filed a no-merit report pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32 (2023-24).1 Wright was advised of his right to file a response, but he
did not do so. Upon this court’s independent review of the record as mandated by Anders, and
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2025AP1681-CRNM
2
counsel’s report, we conclude there are no issues of arguable merit that could be pursued on
appeal. We therefore summarily affirm. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21
In October 2021, police responded to reports of a rollover crash in Milwaukee at the
intersection of West Capitol Drive and North Green Bay Avenue. A passenger in the vehicle,
Jamera Doyle, had been ejected from the vehicle and then pinned underneath it. She was
pronounced dead at the scene.
The driver of the vehicle, Wright, told officers that he had swerved to avoid a vehicle that
had pulled out in front of him. However, accident reconstruction and airbag data reflected that
Wright’s vehicle was traveling in a straight line, at approximately eighty-three miles per hour in
a thirty mile- per-hour zone, just before the crash.
Wright was arrested and charged with second-degree reckless homicide and operating a
vehicle with a suspended license causing death, both as a habitual criminality repeater. He was
also charged with violating a no contact order as a habitual criminal repeater; he had previously
been convicted of third-degree sexual assault of Doyle and was sentenced to probation, with one
of the conditions being no contact with Doyle.
Wright opted to resolve the charges with a plea. In exchange for pleading guilty to the
charges of second-degree reckless homicide and violating a no contact order, the charge of
operating with a suspended license was dismissed but read in for sentencing purposes. The

No. 2025AP1681-CRNM
3
habitual criminality repeater enhancers on those counts were also dismissed. Additionally, the
State agreed not to issue any further charges relating to the Delta-9 found in Wright’s system.2
The circuit court imposed the maximum sentences allowed on these charges: fifteen years
of initial confinement followed by ten years of extended supervision for the reckless homicide
charge; and a concurrent term of three years of initial confinement followed by three years of
extended supervision on the no contact order violation. This no-merit appeal follows.
The no-merit report discusses whether Wright’s pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently entered. The record reflects that the plea colloquy by 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, ¶¶23, 34-
35, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906, which are intended to ensure that a defendant’s plea is
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Furthermore, the circuit court confirmed that Wright signed
and understood the plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form, which further demonstrates that
his pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. See State v. Hoppe, 2009 WI
41, ¶32, 317 Wis. 2d 161, 765 N.W.2d 794. We therefore agree with appellate counsel’s
assessment that there would be no arguable merit to a challenge of the validity of Wright’s pleas.
The no-merit report also discusses Wright’s sentences. The record reflects that the circuit
court properly exercised its discretion in considering proper and relevant sentencing objectives
and factors. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶17, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197; State v.
2 During the plea hearing, there was confusion as to whether the State had filed an amended
information to include a charge of homicide by intoxicated use of a controlled substance. Ultimately,
however, it was determined that this charge had not been added, as no arraignment of that charge had
occurred, and the plea proceeded on the original information.

No. 2025AP1681-CRNM
4
Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, ¶23, 289 Wis. 2d 594, 712 N.W.2d 76. In particular, the court
observed that Wright had a “pattern of excessive speeding,” stating that his choice to drive
recklessly was “not an accident.” The court found these circumstances were “compounded” by
the fact that Wright had “blatantly disregarded” the no contact order with Doyle, whom he
assaulted when she was fifteen years old, resulting in the birth of a daughter who was now
without her mother.
Furthermore, while Wright’s sentences are at the statutory maximums, they are not “so
excessive and unusual and so disproportionate to the offense[s] committed as to shock public
sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper
under the circumstances.” Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975). We
therefore agree with appellate counsel’s conclusion that there would be no arguable merit to a
challenge of Wright’s sentences.
Our independent review of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal.
Accordingly, this court accepts the no-merit report, affirms the conviction, and discharges
appellate counsel of the obligation to represent Wright further in this appeal.
Therefore,

No. 2025AP1681-CRNM
5
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Kachinsky is relieved of further
representation of Wright 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