ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. The petitioner, State of Wisconsin, seeks review of a published court of appeals decision reversing a circuit court judgment in favor of the State and imposing civil penalties and surcharges on Harenda Enterprises, Inc. (Harenda). The judgment and sanctions imposed were for violations of Wis. Admin. Code Ch. NR 447 in connection with Harenda's contract to inspect the Milwaukee Auditorium for possible asbestos-containing material (ACM).

PER CURIAM. Edward Putnam appeals a judgment of conviction for possessing THC, second or subsequent offense, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 961.41(3g)(e). He contends police violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures because they did not have actual or apparent authority to search a bedroom in his aunt's house. We conclude police had apparent authority and therefore affirm.

PER CURIAM. Brian Brown appeals a judgment convicting him of sexually assaulting a six-year-old boy and an order denying his postconviction motion in which he alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, William Lamb. He argues that Lamb failed to adequately cross-examine the State's witnesses or present a defense, and was not adequately prepared for trial. Because we conclude that Brown failed to establish deficient performance and prejudice as to any of counsel's decisions, we affirm the judgment and order.

VERGERONT, J. Patrick Hannon appeals the judgment of conviction for one count of third-degree sexual assault and one count of fourth-degree sexual assault and the circuit court's order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to interview and present testimony from three witnesses whose testimony, he asserts, would have either corroborated Hannon's position that the sexual contact was consensual or undermined the credibility of the complainant. This constituted deficient performance, according to Hannon, and the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. We conclude counsel did not perform deficiently in deciding not to interview these three witnesses. We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction and the postconviction order.

HOOVER, P.J. Laura R. appeals an order adjudicating her delinquent for criminal trespass. Laura argues there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew the entry into the dwelling was without consent. We agree and therefore reverse.

PER CURIAM. Earl Diehl, pro se, appeals an order denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his no contest plea. Diehl argues the circuit court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his plea based upon claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reject Diehl's arguments and affirm the order.

SNYDER, J. Michels Pipeline Construction and Bituminous Casualty Corporation (together, Michels) appeal from an order affirming a Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) decision requiring Michels to pay $13,000 for improperly applying a social security offset to an injured employee's disability payments. The employee, David Benites, was injured at work and subsequently enrolled in a vocational rehabilitation program. While Benites was in the program, Michels applied the social security offset to his disability benefits. Michels argues that the social security offset was consistent with the statutes and therefore Benites has received the benefits due him under the worker's compensation law. We agree and reverse the order of the circuit court.

PER CURIAM. The Estate of Charles Weidner, and Marita Weidner, (the Weidners) appeal a judgment dismissing their complaint against General Motors Corporation, International Truck and Engine Corporation and Thomas Built Buses, Inc. Charles was driving a school bus when he suffered a stroke that led to his death. The Weidners alleged that a fire on the bus caused his injury. The trial court dismissed the Weidners' complaint on summary judgment, after concluding that they failed to present facts refuting the Respondents' prima facie case that Charles suffered his stroke before the fire began. We agree that the Weidners failed to refute the prima facie case on causation, and therefore affirm.

PER CURIAM. Karen Lee appeals an order modifying her divorce judgment to require Karen and her ex-husband Steven Veith to share equally in the capital gains tax liability that resulted when Steven sold real property post-divorce. Karen argues the circuit court was precluded from modifying the unambiguous judgment regarding the property division. We agree and reverse the order.

NEUBAUER, J. Adrian S. appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence of marijuana found on his person during a weapons pat-down. We conclude that the search was constitutionally permissible because, given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in this officer's position would have believed that his or her safety was in danger. The suppression motion was properly denied; we affirm the delinquency order.

BROWN, C.J. The Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board appeals from a circuit court order reversing its decision to revoke Gregory R. Daniels' license to practice. The circuit court reversed on two grounds. First, it held that the Board did not demonstrate a proper exercise of discretion because it failed to adequately explain its decision to revoke Daniels' license when the administrative law judge only recommended suspension. Second, the circuit court held that the Board denied Daniels due process because it did not allow him to appear before the Board (as opposed to the ALJ) regarding the proper sanction for his violations. We reverse the circuit court. The Board's written decision makes a reasoned justification of the sanction it selected, and also explains why it departed from the ALJ's recommendation, just as the statute requires. Further, Daniels' due process rights were satisfied in the proceeding before the ALJ; there is no statutory or constitutional right to a hearing before the Board as a whole, either in the first instance or on remand.

BROWN, C.J. This is the State's appeal from an order suppressing evidence derived from a traffic stop. See WIS. STAT. § 974.05(1)(d)2. The circuit court held that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop where the officer observed a vehicle on the road and knew that the owner had a revoked license and an outstanding arrest warrant. The circuit court's decision was made before our own in State v. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, __ Wis. 2d __, 742 N.W.2d 923, review denied, 2008 WI 6 (No. 2006AP2388-CR) (Dec. 19, 2007). In that case, we held that an officer who knows that a vehicle's owner's license is revoked may conduct an investigatory stop so long as the officer has no information suggesting that the driver of the vehicle is someone other than the owner. See id., ¶2.

ANDERSON, P.J. James H. Klick appeals from a judgment finding him guilty of operating under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(a), fourth offense, as well as operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration in violation of § 346.63(1)(b), fourth offense. Klick argues that his past relationship with Judge Carlson should have been grounds for disqualification under WIS. STAT. § 757.19(2)(g). Klick also argues that Judge Carlson's denial of his motion violated his due process rights by not allowing him a fair and impartial trier of fact. We disagree with Klick's arguments and, therefore, we affirm the judgment.

SNYDER, J. Aran G. Esposito appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, fourth offense. He contends that the circuit court erred in counting two prior "zero tolerance" suspensions that appeared on Esposito's Illinois driving record. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.