State v. Jeffrey Alan Deprey

• Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
• Decided: October 29, 2024
• Docket: 2023AP000808-CRNM
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

October 29, 2024 To: Hon. John P. Zakowski Angela Conrad Kachelski Circuit Court Judge Electronic Notice Electronic Notice Jennifer L. Vandermeuse John VanderLeest Electronic Notice Clerk of Circuit Court Brown County Courthouse Jeffrey Alan Deprey 664120 Electronic Notice Stanley Correctional Inst. 100 Corrections Dr. Stanley, WI 54768

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

2023AP808-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Jeffrey Alan Deprey (L.C. No. 2020CF205)

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Gill, 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).

Counsel for Jeffrey Deprey has filed a no-merit report concluding that no grounds exist to

challenge Deprey’s conviction for repeated sexual assault of the same child, with at least three

first-degree sexual assault violations, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 948.025(1)(d) (2021-22).1 Deprey

was informed of his right to file a response to the no-merit report, and he has not responded.

Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. No. 2023AP808-CRNM

(1967), we conclude there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal.

Therefore, we summarily affirm the judgment of conviction. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.

The State alleged that, between September 7, 2007, and September 6, 2015, Deprey

sexually assaulted Debra2 on at least three occasions when she was between four and twelve

years old. During a pretrial hearing, Deprey’s counsel made an oral motion to dismiss the

complaint on the ground that a lack of specificity in the charging document precluded Deprey

from preparing a defense. Defense counsel later informed the circuit court that he had

researched the charging issue and that after discussing the matter with Deprey, he decided to

withdraw the oral motion.

Defense counsel subsequently questioned Deprey’s competency to proceed, and the

circuit court granted defense counsel’s request for a competency examination. An examining

psychologist submitted a report opining, to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that

Deprey did not lack the substantial mental capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist in

his own defense. After a hearing at which Deprey “asserted his competence” and asked the court

to accept the examiner’s report in lieu of testimony, the court found Deprey competent to

proceed.

In exchange for Deprey’s no-contest plea to the crime charged, the State agreed to cap its

sentence recommendation at thirty-six months of initial confinement followed by thirty-six

months of extended supervision. Out of a maximum possible sixty-year sentence, the circuit

2 Pursuant to the policy underlying WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86(4), we use a pseudonym instead of the victim’s name.

2 No. 2023AP808-CRNM

court imposed a fifteen-year term, consisting of six years of initial confinement followed by nine

years of extended supervision.

The no-merit report addresses whether there are any grounds to challenge the specificity

of the complaint or trial counsel’s withdrawal of the motion to dismiss the complaint. The

no-merit report also addresses whether there are any grounds to challenge: the circuit court’s

competency determination; whether Deprey knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his

no-contest plea; whether there was an adequate factual basis for the plea; and whether the court

erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion. Upon reviewing the record, we agree with

counsel’s analysis and conclusion that there is no arguable merit to any of these issues.

With specific respect to the sentencing hearing, the no-merit report notes that Deprey

appeared by videoconference. The record shows that Deprey waived the right to personally

appear at the sentencing hearing following a colloquy with the circuit court. See State v. Soto,

2012 WI 93, ¶¶46-49, 343 Wis. 2d 43, 817 N.W.2d 848. Any challenge to that proceeding based

on Deprey’s appearance by videoconference would therefore lack arguable merit. The no-merit

report otherwise sets forth an adequate discussion of the potential issues to support the no-merit

conclusion, and we need not address them further.

Our independent review of the record discloses no other potential issue for appeal.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment is summarily affirmed. WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Angela Conrad Kachelski is relieved of her

obligation to further represent Jeffrey Deprey in this matter. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(3).

3 No. 2023AP808-CRNM

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.

Samuel A. Christensen Clerk of Court of Appeals