No decisions were released.

• Arbitration/ Employment Law/ Statutes/ Public Policy
  
  Cedarburg Education Assoc. v. Cedarburg B.O.E.
  Docket: 2007AP000852 07-23-08
  

  SNYDER, J. Cedarburg Education Association (the Union) appeals from a circuit court order reversing an arbitration award in its favor. The arbitrator held that the Cedarburg Board of Education (the Board) did not have just cause to terminate the employment of Cedarburg teacher Robert Zellner, and the circuit court reversed on grounds the award violated Wisconsin public policy as expressed in WIS. STAT. § 115.31(1)(c) (2005-06). The Union contends that the circuit court exceeded its authority and applied the wrong legal standard to conclude that the award violated public policy. We disagree and affirm the order of the circuit court.
• Corporations/ Dissolution/ Contracts/ Statutes/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  Ehlinger v. Hauser
  Docket: 2007AP000477 07-24-08
  Recommended for Publication
  

  BRIDGE, J. This dispute centers on the disability buyout provisions of a Buy-Sell Agreement (Agreement) executed by Jon Hauser and William Ehlinger, the sole and equal shareholders of Evald Moulding Company (Evald). The circuit court ruled that Evald's shareholders were deadlocked, and ordered Evald's dissolution pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 180.1430 (2005-06). However, the court determined that the judicial dissolution would be held in abeyance pending a determination by the court as to whether the disability buyout provisions in the Agreement, which Hauser invoked to buy out Ehlinger's shares, were enforceable. Thereafter the court ruled that they were not. In addition, the court ruled that Hauser was entitled to use Evald's assets to pay his costs of litigating this matter. The issues before us relate to the enforceability of the buyout provisions and the award of litigation costs to Hauser. We agree with the court's rulings on both of these issues and therefore affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Constitutional Law/ Unanimous Jury/ Evidence/ Statutes/ Search & Seizure
  
  State v. Dearborn
  Docket: 2007AP001894 07-24-08
  Recommended for Publication
  

  VERGERONT, J. David Dearborn appeals a judgment of conviction for assaulting or otherwise obstructing, or resisting a conservation warden contrary to WIS. STAT. § 29.951 (2005-06) and for possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) contrary to WIS. STAT. § 961.41(3g)(e). He makes two contentions on appeal. First, he asserts his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict was violated by the jury instruction stating that he may be found guilty of violating § 29.951 if the jury found he assaulted or resisted or obstructed a conservation warden, rather than requiring the jury to unanimously agree on which he did. Second, he asserts the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found from a search of the passenger compartment of his vehicle.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Evidence Ruling
  
  State v. Stefan
  Docket: 2007AP001145 07-24-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Brandon Stefan appeals a judgment, entered upon his no contest plea, convicting him of third-degree sexual assault. Stefan argues the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements made to investigators. We reject his arguments and affirm the judgment.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Evidence Ruling/ Warrants/ Search & Seizure/ Constitutional Law
  
  State v. King
  Docket: 2007AP001420 07-22-08
  Recommended for Publication
  State v. King
  Docket: 2007AP001420E 07-25-08
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Michael Anthony King appeals from a corrected judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of possession with intent to deliver cocaine (more than five grams but less than fifteen grams) and possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), second offense, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 961.41(1m)(cm)2., 961.41(3g)(e), and 961.48 (2001-02). King argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress physical evidence seized during the execution of what he contends was an invalid anticipatory search warrant. In addition, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to give a lesser-included offense jury instruction. Because King has established that the warrant was not a valid anticipatory search warrant and thus, that the evidence seized during the search should have been suppressed, we do not address the latter issue he raises regarding the lesser-included offense instruction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause for such further proceedings consistent with this opinion as may be appropriate.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Venue
  
  State v. Lippold
  Docket: 2007AP001773 07-22-08
  Recommended for Publication
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Kenneth W. Lippold appeals the judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of seven counts of receiving stolen property, as a party to the crime, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 943.34(1)(bm) and 939.05 (2001-02). Lippold argues that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charges against him because the State never established venue in Milwaukee County. He submits that "no direct evidence was presented that [he] received the property in Milwaukee County or that he transported the property through Milwaukee County." Because an element of the crime "receiving stolen property" is that the property must be stolen, and here, that act occurred in the County of Milwaukee, the State proved venue beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, at trial, ample circumstantial evidence was presented that Lippold possessed the stolen property in Milwaukee County. Consequently, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Hate Crime/ Penalty Enhancer/ Multiplicitous Charges/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  State v. Trappe
  Docket: 2007AP002021 07-24-08
  State v. Welda
  Docket: 2007AP002024 07-24-08
  State v. Wagner
  Docket: 2007AP002027 07-24-08
  

  BRIDGE, J. The State of Wisconsin appeals the dismissal of hate crime penalty enhancers to charges of disorderly conduct. The State contends that there are sufficient facts contained in the complaints to support application of a hate crime enhancer as provided in WIS. STAT. § 939.645(1)(2)(a). It contends further that the penalty enhancers, when combined with the underlying charges of disorderly conduct under WIS. STAT. § 947.01, are not multiplicitous. We agree and therefore reverse.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Evidence
  
  State v. Sussman
  Docket: 2007AP000687 07-24-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Gordon Sussman appeals a judgment convicting him of two counts of repeated sexual assault of the same child and sixteen counts of possession of child pornography. He also appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He argues: (1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) that we should reverse because the credibility of the victim's sexual abuse accusations was improperly bolstered with hearsay lay witness opinion testimony. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Judgments/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  State v. Yang
  Docket: 2007AP001190 07-22-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Deng Yang appeals from an order denying his motion to annul a judgment of conviction. The issue is whether the judgment of conviction is void because it was signed by the trial court clerk, as opposed to the trial court judge. We conclude that WIS. STAT. § 972.13(4) (1997-98) authorizes the judge or the clerk of the trial court to sign a judgment of conviction. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Mootness/ Competency/ Procedure
  
  State v. Larkin
  Docket: 2007AP001646 07-24-08
  State v. Larkin
  Docket: 2007AP001647 07-24-08
  State v. Larkin
  Docket: 2007AP001648 07-24-08
  State v. Larkin
  Docket: 2007AP001649 07-24-08
  State v. Larkin
  Docket: 2007AP001650 07-24-08
  
  

  PER CURIAM. Mark Larkin appeals an order denying his motion to vacate his convictions on five criminal charges. We affirm the trial court's decision on both procedural and substantive grounds.
• Family Law/ Child Support/ Statutes
  
  Parrish v. Mendoza
  Docket: 2007AP002241 07-24-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Diana Mendoza appeals an order denying her motion for relief from two child support orders. Mendoza contends the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by failing to apply the proper criteria and by basing its decision on its own experience rather than on facts of record. We agree that the trial court erred with respect to one of the child support orders and certain aspects of the other order, and therefore reverse in part and remand with directions that the trial court exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with this opinion.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Placement/ Best Interest Of Child/ Statutes
  
  Warner v. Warner
  Docket: 2007AP000885 07-22-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Michelle Warner, n/k/a Michelle Schroeder, appeals an order modifying primary placement of the minor children to Charles Warner. Michelle contends the circuit court erred by applying WIS. STAT. § 767.327 to resolve the placement dispute rather than WIS. STAT. § 767.325(1). Michelle also argues the court erroneously exercised its discretion by concluding that removing the children from Clear Lake to Wisconsin Rapids was unreasonable and not in the best interests of the children. We affirm.
• Landlord-Tenant/ Damages/ Burden Of Proof
  
  Schmidt v. Wegner
  Docket: 2008AP000455 07-22-08
  

  HOOVER, P.J. Alan Schmidt appeals a judgment dismissing his claim for damages against his previous tenant, Mary Wegner. We conclude the trial court erroneously shifted the burden to Schmidt to prove that his efforts to mitigate damages were reasonable. There is no evidence in the record to suggest Schmidt's efforts were not reasonable. We therefore reverse and remand for reinstatement of the damages previously awarded to Schmidt.
• Medicaid/ Administrative Regulations/ Statutes
  
  Cholvin v. Wisconsin D.H.F.S.
  Docket: 2007AP001350 07-24-08
  Recommended for Publication
  

  BRIDGE, J. Susan Cholvin appeals a circuit court order affirming the decision of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS), which upheld a decision by the Rock County Department of Social Services terminating Cholvin's eligibility for home and community-based long term care services through the Community Options Program-Waiver/Community Integration Program-II (COP-W/CIP-II), a benefit of the Wisconsin Medicaid program. Cholvin challenges a written instruction given to county workers, otherwise referred to as screeners, for use in determining applicants' functional eligibility to participate in the program. The instruction directs that a "0" value should be entered on a screening form if an applicant experiences a limitation to his or her functional abilities less than one-third of the time. Cholvin contends that this instruction is a rule within the meaning of WIS. STAT. § 227.01(13) (2005-06), and must be promulgated as such pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 227.10. Because it was not, Cholvin argues that the instruction is invalid. We agree, and reverse and remand the matter for a determination of Cholvin's eligibility without the use of the challenged instruction.
• OWI/ Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC)/ Evidence/ Venue
  
  City of Mineral Point v. Ford
  Docket: 2008AP000277 07-24-08
  

  DYKMAN, J. Patrick Ford appeals from a judgment and an order following a guilty verdict for driving with a prohibited alcohol concentration, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(b). Ford argues that the City of Mineral Point failed to provide sufficient evidence of venue, and therefore he was entitled to dismissal at the close of the City's case in chief. We disagree, and therefore affirm.
• OWI/ Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC)/ Plea/ Judgments/ Statute/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  County of Fond du Lac v. Schneider
  Docket: 2007AP002707 07-23-08
  

  SNYDER, J. Thomas W. Schneider appeals from an order denying his motion to reopen a default judgment entered for a civil violation of WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(b), operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration (PAC). We affirm.
• OWI/ Refusal/ Implied Consent/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation/ Hearing Impairment/ Evidence
  
  Village of Hartland v. Wick
  Docket: 2007AP002563 07-23-08
  

  BROWN, C.J. In Wisconsin, a police officer wishing to perform a chemical test for intoxication upon a driver must first provide certain information so that the driver can give his or her informed consent. WIS. STAT. § 343.305(4). In State v. Piddington, 2001 WI 24, ¶22, 241 Wis. 2d 754, 623 N.W.2d 528, our supreme court established the rule that an officer must use methods that would "reasonably convey" these warnings. The appellant in this case, Scott Wick, who is hearing impaired and wears hearing aids, contends that the officer who cited him for refusing a chemical test failed to use methods that would reasonably convey the warnings. We disagree and affirm. On the witness stand, Wick and the arresting officer told two very different stories about what happened on the night of Wick's arrest. The trial court believed the officer. We do not reverse factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and the trial court's are not. Under the version of the facts adopted by the trial court, the officer had no reason to think that Wick could not comprehend the spoken warnings, and thus no reason to think that the spoken warnings were not reasonably conveyed.
• Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation/ Riparian Rights/ Easement/ Contracts
  
  Berkos v. Shipwreck Bay
  Docket: 2006AP002747E 07-23-08
  
• Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs)/ Evidence/ Injunctions/ Criminal Law/ Statutes
  
  Rogers v. Penkalski
  Docket: 2006AP001723 07-24-08
  Rogers v. Penkalski
  Docket: 2006AP001724 07-24-08
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. Paul Penkalski, appearing pro se, appeals orders granted in favor of James Rogers and Michael Larsen, enjoining Penkalski from contacting Rogers and Larsen for two years, and denying his motions for reconsideration. Penkalski contends that Rogers and Larsen filed falsified petitions for temporary restraining orders (TROs), and that Rogers gave false testimony at the hearing, causing the court commissioner and the circuit court to err in issuing the TROs and the injunctions, respectively. Penkalski argues that the evidence was insufficient in both cases to warrant the issuance of an injunction. Finally, he asserts that, even if the evidence was sufficient to support the injunctions, the injunctive orders were overly broad in scope.