PER CURIAM. We review the referee's recommendation that Attorney Leroy Jones's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for four months due to professional misconduct. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has filed a 12-count disciplinary complaint arising from four client matters.

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. The petitioners, Action Wisconsin, Inc., and Christopher Ott, seek review of an unpublished court of appeals decision reversing a circuit court judgment that required attorney James R. Donohoo to pay costs and attorney fees for filing and maintaining a defamation lawsuit that was frivolous. The defamation lawsuit was commenced in response to a press release issued by Action Wisconsin.

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. The defendant, Michelle R. Popenhagen, seeks review of a published court of appeals decision reversing an order of the Circuit Court for Oneida County, Mark Mangerson, Judge. The circuit court granted the defendant's motion to suppress bank documents that police obtained pursuant to a subpoena issued without a showing of probable cause in violation of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 (2005-06), as well as incriminating statements that the defendant made after police confronted her with the unlawfully obtained bank documents.

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. We are asked to review a decision of the court of appeals that reversed the circuit court's decision, which concluded that the stipulated facts of this case present a "common scheme or plan" that invokes joint and several liability under Wis. Stat. § 895.045(2) (2005-06). We affirm the court of appeals.

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. The petitioners, Angela and Matthew Keyes, seek review of a published court of appeals decision affirming a circuit court order denying a motion to dismiss their bindover and information. The Keyes were each charged with felony theft by contractor, party to a crime, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 779.02(5) and 943.20(1)(b) (1999-2000). The charges stemmed from payments they received on a house construction project for which they were prime contractors.

PER CURIAM. This case arose on cross-motions for summary judgment after psychologist Marc Ackerman claimed Malcolm Hatfield, M.D., violated the parties' arbitration agreement. Dr. Hatfield appeals the judgment granting Dr. Ackerman's motion and denying his, in which the circuit court concluded that Dr. Hatfield discussed the subject matter of the arbitration when he caused comments about Dr. Ackerman to be posted online. The court ordered Dr. Hatfield to pay Dr. Ackerman $100,000 per the liquidated damages provision of the parties' arbitration agreement. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Lamont E. Wallace appeals from a postconviction order summarily denying his motion for a new trial. The issue is whether postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the trial court's alleged deprivation of Wallace's confrontation rights by allowing police testimony about the witness who allegedly implicated Wallace beyond the scope of the parties' court-approved stipulation regarding that witness. We conclude that Wallace was not deprived of his confrontation rights because the police testimony about that witness did not include hearsay, or extend beyond the scope of the stipulation; consequently, counsel was not ineffective for refusing to raise that issue. Therefore, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. Daniel Chouinard appeals from an order denying his postconviction motions. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. James Alfred Smith appeals from an order dismissing his postconviction motion for relief pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2005-06). We conclude that the trial court lacked competency to decide the motion because the record in Smith's underlying case was in the appeals court incident to appellate proceedings involving the same judgment Smith sought to challenge in his postconviction motion, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction. Therefore, we affirm.

KESSLER, J. Lawrence Payette appeals from denial of a postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea to causing a child to practice prostitution in violation of WIS. STAT. § 948.08 (1997-98), and to causing a child to go into a room or secluded place with intent to give a child cocaine in violation of WIS. STAT. § 948.07(6). He also appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion for resentencing arguing that the trial court considered improper information at sentencing and arguing that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by prohibiting Payette from looking at the victim who appeared at sentencing and made an oral statement. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Rashad Samad Nealy pled guilty to two counts of burglary to a building or dwelling as a party to a crime. The circuit court imposed concurrent six-year prison sentences, with Nealy to serve a minimum of three years in initial confinement and a maximum of three years on extended supervision. Nealy sought sentence modification, arguing that the circuit court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion by: (1) failing to apply the appropriate sentencing factors; (2) failing to adequately explain its use of applicable sentencing guidelines; and (3) imposing a significantly harsher, and therefore unreasonable, sentence on him than on his co-actor. The circuit court denied Nealy's motion, and Nealy appeals. We conclude that Nealy's arguments are without merit, and we therefore affirm the judgment of conviction and the postconviction order.

SNYDER, J. Ronald McElvaney appeals from an order affirming a Department of Corrections Division of Hearings and Appeals decision that revoked McElvaney's extended supervision. He claims that the DOC improperly revoked his extended supervision based on conduct that occurred during his probation period. McElvaney asserts that his term of extended supervision, which was part of a bifurcated sentence that was originally imposed and stayed, was a "separate term of supervision" from the term of probation that preceded his incarceration on the bifurcated sentence. We disagree and affirm the order of the circuit court.

PER CURIAM. Michael Sveum appeals from a circuit court order that denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus following a remand from this court. He claims he should have been granted relief on claims that counsel provided ineffective assistance by providing bad advice which had prevented him from accepting a plea bargain and by failing to present a certain witness at trial. We affirm for the reasons discussed below.

FINE, J. Joseph P. Donaubauer appeals orders dismissing on summary judgment his claims against The Farmers Automobile Insurance Association, his home insurer. He contends that the circuit court erred in: (1) not relieving him from his agreement to submit his dispute with Farmers to the insurance policy's appraisal process; (2) not allowing him to depose the appraisers and a consultant hired by them; (3) refusing to vacate or modify the appraisal valuation; (4) dismissing his bad-faith claim against Farmers; and (5) dismissing his breach-of-contract claim against Farmers. He also argues that the circuit court's grant of summary judgment unlawfully deprived him of his right to a jury trial and that the circuit court denied him due process by not allowing him discovery on his bad-faith claim. We affirm.

NEUBAUER, J. In this case, we examine whether WIS. STAT. § 632.32(5)(i) (2005-06) permits two independent underinsured motorist (UIM) carriers with two separate policies to each reduce their respective UIM coverages by the liability limits paid by a single tortfeasor. We hold that it does.

CURLEY, P.J. Tanya Houston appeals the order denying her motion for reconsideration of an earlier eviction judgment entered against her. She argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it failed to determine whether she had sufficiently proven that her landlord, Christopher Torzala, had commenced the eviction to retaliate for her entering a rent withholding program, and that the trial court erred in deciding that rent abatement was not contemplated by Houston, and thus, was not in operation when the eviction action was started, and in its determination that the $25 referred to in the lease as a reduction in rent was a rental discount, not a late fee. Because retaliation was not available as a defense to the eviction action under the facts as found by the trial court, and the trial court did not err in its legal determinations, the order and underlying judgment are affirmed.

BRUNNER, J. The State appeals an order granting Dennis Zingshiem's motion to suppress the results of his field sobriety tests. The State argues the circuit court applied the wrong standard when it ruled that the officer did not have probable cause to perform field sobriety tests. We agree and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

WEDEMEYER, J. John M. Rodriguez-Luis appeals from a judgment entered after he pled guilty to operating with a prohibited alcohol content, second offense, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 346.63(1)(b), 340.01(46m) and 346.65(2) (2005-06). He challenges an order denying his motion seeking to suppress. Because the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Randy Pingel appeals a judgment awarding a portion of his property to Peter and Robin Forstner by adverse possession. He also contests the award of damages that resulted from his actions in moving a shed from the disputed property. Pingel asserts the testimony did not establish adverse possession and the evidence did not support the court's award of damages. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

PER CURIAM. Raymond and Dorothy Porter appeal a judgment awarding Dennis Desbrow a prescriptive easement across their property. They contend the court erred in finding a prescriptive easement and by concluding it did not have the power to equitably relocate the easement. We affirm the judgment.

PER CURIAM. James and Barbara Berard appeal a summary judgment dismissing their breach of contract warranty, false advertising, and theft by fraud claims against Brian and Pamela Schertz, as well as a false advertising claim against Country Aire Realty, Inc., following a home purchase. The Berards contend their claims are not barred by an "as is" clause in their home purchase contract and that genuine issues of material fact exist on their claims. We reverse the summary judgment and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

KESSLER, J. Briane F. Pagel, Jr., and Joy Pagel (individually and collectively, Pagel) appeal from an order granting summary judgment to Milwaukee City Center LLC (MCC), dismissing all claims by Pagel against it. Pagel asserts that the trial court erred when it applied § 388 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS to the facts here, and concluded that the hazard, which Pagel claims caused his injury, was open and obvious to Pagel, thus relieving MCC of a duty to provide signs warning of the open and obvious hazard. We affirm.