State v. Beecher

1

State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert Francis Beecher, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 2023AP932, 2023AP933

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II

May 22, 2024

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

APPEALS from judgments and orders of the circuit court for Sheboygan County Cir. Ct. Nos. 2019CF909, 2020CF123: KENT R HOFFMANN, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Gundrum, P.J., Grogan and Lazar, JJ.

Per curiam opinions 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).

PER CURIAM

¶1 In these consolidated cases, Robert Beecher appeals from judgments of conviction for armed robbery and burglary entered on his guilty pleas, and from orders denying his motions for postconviction relief. He claims the circuit court erred by denying his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas, which motions were based on his contention he did not understand the court could order his armed robbery sentence to run consecutively to his burglary sentence. He alternatively asks us to order modification of his sentence-to make his armed robbery sentence concurrent instead of consecutive, to his burglary sentence- claiming such modification is warranted because the consecutive sentence was too "harsh" and thus amounted to an erroneous exercise of discretion by the court. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Background

¶2 The State charged Beecher with armed robbery with threat of force, as a repeater, in connection with an incident in which he demanded and took money from a gas station while brandishing a butcher knife and with burglary from a room, as a repeater, in connection with an incident in which he entered a residential care living facility and stole two wallets of caregivers. As part of a plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend specific initial confinement and extended supervision time on each case and that the sentences run concurrent to each other.

¶3 The circuit court confirmed at the plea hearing Beecher's understanding of the possible penalties for each case with the repeater enhancer- thirteen years and six months of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision on the burglary charge and thirty-one years of initial confinement and fifteen years of extended supervision on the armed robbery charge. The court further confirmed Beecher's understanding that it "could, if it saw it as appropriate, impose the maximum penalties in spite of any agreements or recommendations." Following these and other aspects of the plea colloquy, the court accepted Beecher's pleas.

¶4 In sentencing Beecher, the circuit court explained why it had determined "a significant prison sentence is appropriate," focusing on the need to protect the public, deter Beecher and others from future such crimes, and punish Beecher for his "very concerning conduct" that "calls out for punishment," especially in light of his lengthy criminal record. The court discussed how the present crimes are the "type of conduct the community needs protection from" in that they are "a violation of sanctity of security and of personal peace," have "such an effect on a ... victim ... and [are] so dangerous to everyone when [they are] occurring." The court reviewed Beecher's criminal record, which included twelve prior offenses, and it considered as aggravating the fact he committed the present offenses while on extended supervision.

¶5 The circuit court found it "very concerning" that in relation to the armed robbery offense, Beecher brandished a knife while demanding money from a gas station clerk who was working by herself and later bragged to another inmate that "it was a thrill." Beecher's conduct, the court stated, was "very serious" and "could have escalated into something even worse." As to the burglary offense, the court found it particularly disturbing that Beecher victimized caregivers working at "a home that cares for vulnerable people." The court emphasized the effect of the burglary on the victims who, based upon the statement of the victims' representative at sentencing, "no longer bring their belongings to work" or "trust ... family members who come into the facility."

¶6 On the burglary count, the circuit court sentenced Beecher to six years of initial confinement and four years of extended supervision, and on the armed robbery count, it sentenced him to ten years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision, consecutive to the burglary sentence, for a total of sixteen years of initial confinement and nine years of extended supervision. The court found that this was "the minimum amount of time-sentence needed" to meet its sentencing objectives of protection of the community, deterrence, and punishment and expressed that Beecher had "had so many opportunities in the community, these crimes are so serious, that I just think anything less than what I have sentenced you to here today would not meet the[se] objectives." The court made Beecher eligible for the substance abuse program after serving ten years of initial confinement.

¶7 Beecher filed postconviction motions seeking (1) to withdraw his pleas on the basis that he did not understand the circuit court could order the sentence of one case to run consecutive to the other case, or in the alternative, (2) modification of his armed robbery sentence so that it would run concurrent to his burglary sentence, because the court erroneously exercised its discretion in ordering it to run consecutively as the resulting sentence was too harsh. At the evidentiary hearing on his motions, Beecher testified he did not understand that the court could order his sentences to run consecutively and that had he known, he would not have pled. He claimed he was "told" that his sentences would run concurrently, but did not identify who told him this. The court found that Beecher had seventeen prior convictions. Beecher admitted that he had been sentenced to consecutive sentences in connection with a 2013 conviction, and he agreed that he "understood that to mean that [he] would serve those cases one right after each other."

¶8 Specifically noting that Beecher had previously received a consecutive sentence, the circuit court denied his motions to withdraw his pleas, finding his testimony untruthful that he did not understand that the court could order his sentence in one case to run consecutive to his sentence in the other case. The court further determined that ordering the armed robbery sentence to be served consecutively to the burglary sentence was not unduly harsh, noting that the sentence on the armed robbery charge was "not close to the maximum" that it could have imposed. The court pointed out that in its discretion it had determined that the sentence it imposed was "the minimum amount of time needed" to meet its objectives of community protection, deterrence, and punishment. The court stated: "I don't think that the sentence in any way shocks the public sentiment and violates the judgment of a reasonable person regarding what is right and proper under the circumstances of these cases, particularly when you couple that with Mr. Beecher's prior record."

¶9 Beecher appeals.

Discussion

¶10 Beecher first asserts he must be allowed to withdraw his pleas because at the time he entered them, he "did not understand'V'was unaware" the circuit court could order his sentences to run consecutively, and thus he did not knowingly enter his pleas. We quickly reject this assertion, because the court specifically found that he did know it could order one of his sentences to run consecutively to the other.

¶11 "We review a circuit court's decision to deny a plea withdrawal motion under an erroneous exercise of discretion standard." State v. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 ¶12, 397 Wis.2d 758, 960 N.W.2d 888 (citation omitted). A defendant seeking to withdraw his plea after sentencing must establish "by clear and convincing evidence that failure to withdraw the guilty or no contest plea will result in a manifest injustice." State v. Taylor, 2013...