State v. Andrew M. Dunse

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 III July 30, 2013 To: Hon. David G. Miron Circuit Court Judge Marinette County Courthouse 1926 Hall Avenue Marinette, WI 54143 Linda Dumke-Marquardt Clerk of Circuit Court Marinette County Courthouse 1926 Hall Avenue Marinette, WI 54143 Allen R. Brey District Attorney 1926 Hall Avenue Marinette, WI 54143-1717 Steven D. Phillips Asst. State Public Defender P.O. Box 7862 Madison, WI 53707-7862 Gregory M. Weber Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 Andrew M. Dunse 401 Carney Blvd. Marinette, WI 54143 You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order: 2013AP665-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Andrew M. Dunse (L. C. #2012CM78) Before Mangerson, J.1 Counsel for Andrew Dunse has filed a no-merit report pursuant to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32, concluding no grounds exist to challenge Dunse s conviction for intentionally mistreating an animal. Dunse was informed of his right to file a response to the no-merit report and has not responded. Upon an independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), this court concludes there is no arguable merit to any issue that 1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise noted. No. 2013AP665-CRNM could be raised on appeal. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. The State charged Dunse with disorderly conduct and intentionally mistreating an animal. The complaint arose from allegations surrounding an argument Dunse had with his girlfriend, Veronica S. As Veronica was leaving the couple s residence, she called her dog to her. After Veronica picked up the dog, Dunse grabbed the dog and kicked it outside as if punting a football. In exchange for his no contest plea to animal mistreatment, the State agreed to dismiss and read in the disorderly conduct charge. The court ultimately imposed the maximum sentence of nine months in jail. The record discloses no arguable basis for withdrawing Dunse s no contest plea. The court s plea colloquy, supplemented by a plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form that Dunse completed, informed Dunse of the elements of the offense, the penalties that could be imposed, and the constitutional rights he waived by entering a no contest plea. The court ascertained that anti-seizure medication Dunse was taking did not interfere with his ability to understand the proceedings. The court advised Dunse of the deportation consequences of his plea, as mandated by WIS. STAT. § 971.08(1)(c), and confirmed Dunse s understanding that it was not bound by the terms of the plea agreement. See State v. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, ¶2, 274 Wis. 2d 379, 683 N.W.2d 14. The court also found that a sufficient factual basis existed in the criminal complaint to support Dunse s plea. The record shows the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. See State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 257, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). 2 No. 2013AP665-CRNM The record discloses no arguable basis for challenging the sentence imposed. Before imposing a sentence authorized by law, the court considered the seriousness of the offense, Dunse s character, including his criminal history, the need to protect the public, and the mitigating factors Dunse raised. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. The court specifically noted that kicking a defenseless animal like a football was pretty despicable, and further questioned whether Dunse could be rehabilitated given his lengthy criminal record. Under these circumstances, it cannot reasonably be argued that Dunse s sentence is so excessive as to shock public sentiment. See Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975). An independent review of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed pursuant to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorney Steven D. Phillips is relieved of further representing Dunse in this matter. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(3). Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.