CA Blank Order

Hon. Fred H. Hazlewood

Reserve Judge

Lynn Zigmunt

Clerk of Circuit Court

Manitowoc County Courthouse

1010 S. 8th St.

Manitowoc, WI 54220-5380

Jacalyn C. LaBre

District Attorney

1010 S. 8th St.

Manitowoc, WI 54220

Andrew H. Morgan

Charlton & Morgan Ltd

Waveland Office Holdings Building

601 N. Fifth St.

Sheboygan, WI 53081

Gregory M. Weber

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 7857

Madison, WI 53707-7857

Jeffrey A. White, #599957

Waupun Corr. Inst.

P.O. Box 351

Waupun, WI 53963-0351

You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:



	2013AP2082-CRNM	State of Wisconsin v. Jeffrey A. White (L.C. #2012CF29)

Before Brown, C.J., Neubauer, P.J., and Gundrum, J.

Jeffrey A. White, by Attorney Andrew H. Morgan, appealed from a judgment convicting him of two counts of armed robbery with threat of force, two counts of false imprisonment, all as party to a crime, and one count of carrying a concealed weapon. The trial court sentenced him to a seventeen-year term bifurcated as nine years’ initial confinement and eight years’ extended supervision. Morgan previously filed a no-merit report pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32 (2011-12)[1] and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). On April 24, 2014, this court issued an order stating that it could not conclude that a challenge to the DNA surcharge would lack arguable merit.[2] See State v. Cherry, 2008 WI App 80, ¶¶8-9, 312 Wis. 2d 203, 752 N.W.2d 393. We directed Morgan to evaluate this matter and discuss with White the prospect of filing a postconviction motion raising this issue and stated that, after consultation with White, counsel should file a supplemental report advising whether White wanted to file a postconviction motion. We stated that counsel then should file a supplemental no-merit report, including an affidavit, advising whether White wanted to file a postconviction motion on this issue alone. See Rule 809.32(1)(f). We stated that if White did not wish to file a postconviction motion, he would be deemed to have affirmatively waived the potential Cherry issue, and the appeal would proceed under Rule 809.32. We also explained what would follow if White did want to file a postconviction motion.

On May 5, 2014, Morgan filed a supplemental report and affidavit indicating that he has discussed with White a potential challenge to the DNA surcharge. Counsel advises that White informed him that he has nearly finished paying the DNA surcharge and does not wish to pursue a postconviction motion regarding the Cherry issue.

Upon the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the no-merit report is accepted and Attorney Andrew H. Morgan’s motion to be relieved of further representation of White is granted.

[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise noted.

[2] Our reasons for reaching this conclusion were detailed in the April 24, 2014 order and will not be repeated here.