PER CURIAM. We review a referee's report recommending that Kristin J. Gernetzke's license to practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated.

PER CURIAM. We review the recommendation of the referee, Dennis Flynn, that the license of Attorney R. L. McNeely to practice law in this state be suspended for a period of 60 days for professional misconduct. Neither party appealed the referee's report, so this matter is submitted to the court for review pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). We also consider Attorney McNeely's objection to the costs of this proceeding.

PER CURIAM. We review a referee's report finding that Attorney Joan M. Boyd engaged in professional misconduct with respect to her handling of three client matters. The referee recommended that Attorney Boyd's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months.

PER CURIAM. We review the stipulation filed pursuant to SCR 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Maureen B. Fitzgerald. Attorney Fitzgerald admits the misconduct alleged by the OLR in a six-count disciplinary complaint and agrees to a 60-day license suspension plus restitution.

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. We review a decision by the court of appeals that affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the petitioner's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and its request for a jury question on punitive damages. The circuit court concluded that the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to support both Berner Cheese Corporation's (Berner) breach of fiduciary duty claim and the submission of a punitive damages question to the jury. The court of appeals agreed that Berner did not present credible evidence that it suffered damages due to conduct Berner characterized as a breach of Attorney Lyle Krug's fiduciary duty to it. Berner Cheese Corp. v. Krug, No. 2005AP1527, unpublished slip op., ¶24 (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2006). In regard to punitive damages, the court of appeals concluded that due to the set-offs from damages awarded in Berner's legal malpractice claim, Berner collected no compensatory damages. Therefore, it could not be awarded punitive damages. Id., ¶29.

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J. This is a review of a published court of appeals opinion reversing a judgment of conviction and order by the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, the Honorable Elsa C. Lamelas presiding, denying a defendant's postconviction motion for a new trial. Carmen Doss (Doss) appealed from a judgment of conviction finding her guilty of unlawfully retaining funds from her father's estate, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(b) and (3)(c) (2003-04).

DAVID T. PROSSER, J. This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, which reversed and remanded the judgment and orders of the Ozaukee County Circuit Court, Thomas R. Wolfgram, Judge.

DAVID T. PROSSER, J. This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, which reversed a judgment of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, William Sosnay, Judge. The circuit court denied Nathaniel Sumner's (Sumner) motion to suppress evidence obtained during a protective frisk following a traffic stop, and he subsequently pled guilty to possession of heroin, a violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 961.14(3)(k) and 961.41(3g)(am).

DAVID T. PROSSER, J. This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, which affirmed a judgment and order of the Washburn County Circuit Court, Michael J. Gableman, Judge. The circuit court dismissed Dr. Hans Rechsteiner's (Dr. Rechsteiner) suit and granted summary judgment to defendants Spooner Health System (Spooner); the Board of Directors of Spooner Health System (Board); directors Judy Cuskey, Maxine Long, and William Stewart, III; Spooner administrator Mike Schafer; and Hazelden, an addictionology clinic.

DAVID T. PROSSER, J. This is a review of an unpublished decision and order of the court of appeals, that summarily affirmed a judgment of the Waukesha County Circuit Court, Robert G. Mawdsley, Judge.

DAVID T. PROSSER, J. This is a review of an unpublished opinion and order of the court of appeals, which summarily reversed the Walworth County Circuit Court, Michael S. Gibbs, Judge.

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J. Kenneth W. Hornback, Dennis L. Bolton, Ronald W. Kuhl, David W. Schaeffer and Glenn M. Bonn (the plaintiffs) seek review of a court of appeals decision that affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee (the Archdiocese) and the Diocese of Madison (the Diocese), along with their insurance companies.

BRIDGE, J. Meriter Health Services, Inc. commenced this action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America for breach of contract after Travelers denied a claim made by Meriter under a "commercial crime" insurance policy issued by Travelers. The circuit court granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Travelers owed no insurance coverage to Meriter because of a misrepresentation made by Meriter on its insurance application. We determine that the property in question was not covered property under the terms of the policy and therefore affirm, although for different reasons.

PER CURIAM. After a five-day trial, a jury convicted Keith A. Lee of first-degree reckless homicide and two counts of armed robbery, all as party to a crime. Lee appeals the judgment on grounds that admitting an accomplice's statements into evidence violated his right to confront his accusers and allowing in-court identification by the State's witness was inherently suggestive, thereby violating his right to due process. We hold that the accomplice's statement was neither hearsay nor testimonial and the in-court identification was permissible because it had an independent basis. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Johnnie B. Rose was sentenced on three separate occasions for an offense committed in 2000: in August 2001 as the result of a plea, in February 2003 as the result of resentencing ordered in lieu of his request to withdraw his plea, and in March 2006 after a jury trial following Rose's successful plea withdrawal. The same judge sentenced Rose on the second and third occasions, sentencing him more harshly after the jury trial. The question is whether the March 2006 sentencing bore the presumption of vindictiveness identified in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), for Rose having exercised his appeal rights. On these facts, and under State v. Naydihor, 2004

KESSLER, J. Rufus Ronnie Bell appeals from a judgment of conviction for possession of narcotics, and from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Bell, who pled guilty after his motion to suppress narcotics seized from his person was denied, argues the narcotics should have been suppressed as fruit of an illegal stop. In the alternative, Bell argues he is entitled to relief because he was given ineffective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing. We conclude that the drugs should have been suppressed and, therefore, reverse the conviction and remand for further proceedings. Because the suppression issue is dispositive, we do not address Bell's ineffective assistance claim.

LUNDSTEN, J. Leland Mellum appeals a circuit court judgment convicting him of possession of THC. He challenges the circuit court's decision denying his motion to suppress evidence that resulted from a protective search for weapons. We agree with Mellum that, under State v. Mohr, 2000 WI App 111, 235 Wis. 2d 220, 613 N.W.2d 186, the court should have granted the motion. We reverse the judgment and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM. Dorian Brown appeals from an order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus, and from a correlative order denying his motion for reconsideration. The issues are whether two Department of Corrections documents relating to the revocation of Brown's probation were invalid because they were not actually signed by the supervisor of Brown's probation agent. We conclude that Brown may not use mandamus to successively litigate the revocation of his probation. Therefore, we affirm.

DYKMAN, J. Rick D.R. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, Lailah E., on grounds of abandonment under WIS. STAT. § 48.415(1)(a)3. and failure to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6). Rick argues that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney (1) prepared a defense to the abandonment count for the wrong six-month period, and therefore failed to present evidence that Rick did have contact with Lailah during the alleged period of abandonment; and (2) failed to present evidence that showed Rick had assumed parental responsibility, including evidence of Rick's relationship with Lailah during the alleged period of abandonment. Rick also argues that the trial court issued erroneous jury instructions, that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and laches bar the petition to terminate his parental rights, and that he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice. We conclude that Rick was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel, and therefore reverse.

WEDEMEYER, J. Otis G. appeals from an order granting the State's motion for partial summary judgment as to the grounds phase pursuant to WIS. STAT. §§ 802.08, and 48.415(9) (2005-06), in a termination of parental rights action, which sought to terminate his parental rights to Davonta S. Otis claims that WIS. STAT. § 48.415(9) is unconstitutional because: (1) it creates an irrebuttable presumption of unfitness, which denies him due process of law; and (2) it is unjustifiably not gender neutral, which denies him the equal protection of the law. Otis also claims that a finding of unfitness based solely on a violation of WIS. STAT. § 948.02(2) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We agree with the trial court that WIS. STAT. § 48.415(9) is narrowly tailored to meet the State's compelling interest in protecting children from their unfit parents; the statute is not facially discriminatory; and a finding of unfitness pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 948.02(2) does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, this court affirms.

VERGERONT, J. Roger L. Charly appeals the circuit court's order that he convey certain real estate to Richard McLellan pursuant to an option to purchase. The circuit court concluded that leaseback and repurchase provisions in the agreement between Charly and McLellan constituted consideration for the option and Charly breached the agreement by revoking the option before the expiration of the specified time period. Charly contends there was no consideration for the option and, thus, he could revoke it at any time. He also contends the circuit court erred in concluding that the interest of third parties was not an appropriate factor in deciding whether to grant specific performance.

HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. Daniel M. Berkos d/b/a C & B Investments appeals a circuit court order granting summary judgment in favor of Shipwreck Bay Condominium Association and the individual condominium owners ("Association") in C & B's action seeking a declaration of its right to install piers abutting shoreline property owned by the Association based on provisions in the Declaration of Condominium for each unit. C & B contends that the circuit court misread WIS. STAT. § 30.133 (2005-06), which restricts the severability of riparian rights from riparian land, to preclude enforcement of the relevant provisions of the Declaration Condominium. C & B contends that § 30.133 prohibits only the sale of riparian rights by a riparian owner to another person, not the reservation of such rights by easement or similar conveyance upon the transfer of riparian land. We disagree and conclude that § 30.133 prohibits the reservation of riparian rights by easement or similar conveyance upon the transfer of title of riparian land, and, therefore, the easement in the Declaration of Condominium is void as contrary to § 30.133. Accordingly, we affirm.