Neubauer, C.J., Gundrum and Hagedorn, JJ.
J. Bishop appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon
his no contest pleas to first-degree sexual assault, contact
with a child under thirteen, contrary to Wis.Stat. §
948.02(1)(e) (2013-14), and sexual exploitation of a child,
contrary to Wis.Stat. § 948.05(1)(b). Bishop's
appellate counsel filed a no-merit report pursuant to
Wis.Stat. Rule 809.32 (2015-16),  and Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Bishop received a copy
of the report, was advised of his right to file a response,
and elected not to do so. Upon our independent review of the
record, we determined there were potential issues of arguable
merit concerning Bishop's no contest pleas. As to
Bishop's no contest plea to the child exploitation
charge, we questioned whether the plea-taking procedure
comported with State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246,
266-72, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), because no record was made of
Bishop's understanding that the charge carried a
mandatory minimum penalty. As to both no contest pleas, we
questioned whether the circuit court's failure to advise
Bishop that he faced multiple mandatory DNA surcharges gave
rise to an arguably meritorious plea withdrawal issue. We
required appellate counsel to consult with Bishop and file
supplemental no-merit reports.
to our August 22, 2016 order, counsel filed a supplemental
no-merit report asserting that after consultation, Bishop
"wishes to waive any challenge to his plea on the
grounds that he did not know about the mandatory
minimum." We also received a written statement from
Bishop confirming his desire to waive any potential challenge
to the mandatory minimum penalty plea-taking issue.
Similarly, pursuant to our November 11, 2016 order, counsel
filed a second supplemental no-merit report asserting that
after consultation, Bishop "wishes to waive any
challenge to his plea on the grounds that he was not advised
that the court would be imposing multiple DNA
surcharges." As before, we received a written statement
from Bishop confirming his desire to waive any potential
challenge to the DNA surcharge plea-taking issue. We accept
these representations and conclude that Bishop has waived any
challenge to the legitimacy of his no contest pleas based on
a lack of information or understanding concerning (1) the
mandatory minimum penalty associated with the child
exploitation charge, and (2) the imposition of multiple DNA
surcharges. Upon consideration of the original and
supplemental no-merit reports and based on our independent
review of the record, we conclude that the judgment may be
summarily affirmed because there is no arguable merit to any
other issue that could be raised on appeal. See Wis.
Stat. Rule 809.21.
issue of arguable merit otherwise arises from the taking of
Bishop's no contest pleas. The circuit court engaged in an
appropriate plea colloquy and made the necessary advisements
and findings required by Wis. STAT. § 971.08(1)(a),
State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246, 266-72, 389 N.W.2d
12 (1986), and State v. Hampton, 2004 WI 107,
¶38, 274 Wis.2d 379, 683 N.W.2d 14. Additionally, the
circuit court properly relied upon Bishop's signed plea
questionnaire to establish his knowledge and understanding of
his pleas. See State v. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41,
¶¶30-32, 317 Wis.2d 161, 765 N.W.2d 794; State
v. Moederndorfer, 141 Wis.2d 823, 827-28, 416 N.W.2d 627
(Ct. App. 1987).
sentencing, the court imposed a twenty-two year bifurcated
sentence with twelve years of initial confinement and ten
years of extended supervision on the first-degree sexual
assault count. On the child exploitation count, the court
imposed a consecutive eighteen-year bifurcated sentence, with
eight years of initial confinement and ten years of extended
supervision. In fashioning the sentence, the court considered
the seriousness of the offenses, the defendant's
character and history of prior offenses, and the need to
protect the public. State v. Ziegler, 2006 WI.App.
49, ¶23, 289 Wis.2d 594, 712 N.W.2d 76. Noting that
first-degree child sexual assault, a Class B felony, is
itself a most serious offense, the sentencing court
determined that the crime was made even more severe by
Bishop's taking pictures. The court considered that
Bishop had a prior sexual assault on his record and a history
of being revoked while on probation. The court determined
that a lengthy prison sentence was necessary due to the
seriousness of the offenses and to protect the victim and the
general public. The sentence was a demonstrably proper
exercise of discretion. Further, we cannot conclude that the
global forty-year sentence when measured against the possible
maximum sentence of 100 years is so excessive or unusual as
to shock public sentiment. See Ocanas v. State, 70
Wis.2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975).
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 Bishop further in this appeal.
the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of
conviction is summarily affirmed. See Wis. STAT.
FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Tristan S. Breedlove is
relieved from further representing Michael J. Bishop.
See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(3).
 All references to the Wisconsin
Statutes are to the 2015-16 version unless otherwise
 On August 22, 2016, we directed
counsel to file a supplemental no-merit report on the
mandatory minimum penalty issue. After counsel filed the
supplemental no-merit report, we certified State v.
Odom, No. 2015AP2525-CR, to the Wisconsin Supreme Court
for its review and determination on whether a circuit
court's failure to advise a defendant about the mandatory
imposition of multiple DNA surcharges for multiple
convictions "establishes a prima facie showing that the
defendant's plea was unknowing, involuntary, and
unintelligent." Due to the Odom certification,
on November 11, 2016, we directed appellate counsel to file a
second supplemental no-merit report addressing whether the
imposition of multiple mandatory DNA surcharges gives rise to
an issue of arguable merit in the instant case.
 Bishop was originally charged with two
counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts
of incest, and one count each of sexual exploitation of a
child, child enticement, and possession of child pornography.
Upon Bishop's pleas to the two charges of conviction, the
State moved to dismiss and read in the remaining five counts
and agreed ...