No decisions were released.

• Attorney Fees/ Contracts
  
  Stageberg v. Egan
  Docket: 2007AP002917 08-05-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Attorney Mark Stageberg appeals a judgment dividing a contingency fee between himself and attorney Gregory Egan. Stageberg contends Egan was not entitled to compensation under Egan's fee contract with Joy Dip Das, Egan's former client. Stageberg argues Das discharged Egan for cause and that Egan breached his contract with Das. We reject Stageberg's arguments and affirm the judgment.
• Criminal Law/ Appeal Barred/ Procedure
  
  State v. Ellis
  Docket: 2007AP001080 08-05-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Jimmie Lee Ellis appeals from an order summarily denying his postconviction motion. We conclude that Ellis's postconviction motion is procedurally barred for his failure to allege a reason for failing to previously raise the issues he now seeks to raise. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Constitutional Law/ Evidence/ Discovery/ "Brady Violation"
  
  State v. Jenkins
  Docket: 2007AP001491 08-05-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Donta Jenkins appeals a judgment convicting him of second offense possession of more than forty grams of cocaine with intent to deliver, solicitation to commit perjury and felon in possession of a firearm. The jury acquitted him of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and an additional count of solicitation to commit perjury. He also appeals an order denying his postconviction motion. He argues the State violated his constitutional and statutory rights when it failed to disclose impeachment evidence pertaining to one of its key witnesses and the trial court erred by permitting the jury to view a video recording of a witness' police interview. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment and order.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence
  
  State v. Ridley
  Docket: 2007AP001730 08-06-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Joseph G. Ridley appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against him. He was convicted of one count of threat to a judge. WIS. STAT. § 940.203 (2005-06). He argues on appeal that the threat he made did not constitute a "true threat" within the meaning of the statute. Because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Constitutional Law/ Warrantless Searches/ Standing/ Privacy
  
  State v. Fox
  Docket: 2007AP000685 08-07-08
  Recommended for Publication
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. The State appeals a circuit court order granting Sean R. Fox's motion to suppress evidence of manufacturing methamphetamine, delivering drug paraphernalia and possession of waste from methamphetamine manufacturing. The dispositive issue is whether Fox has standing under the Fourth Amendment and art. I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution to challenge the warrantless search of a trailer he was using where the inculpatory evidence was discovered. We conclude that Fox lacked standing and therefore the circuit court erred in reaching the merits of Fox's motion to suppress evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's order of suppression and remand for further proceedings.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ New Trial/ Evidence/ Burden Of Proof
  
  State v. Mayo
  Docket: 2007AP001844 08-07-08
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. Jody Mayo appeals the circuit court's order denying a second motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Her motion is based on the same evidence as her previous motion. Mayo argues, however, that she is entitled to a new trial because our prior decision affirming the denial of her previous motion was based on errors of law or has been superseded by intervening changes in the law. We disagree and affirm the circuit court's order.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ New Trial/ Evidence/ Appeal Barred/ Procedure
  
  State v. Chesir
  Docket: 2007AP000729 08-05-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Michael Chesir appeals from a circuit court order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2005-06) postconviction motion by which he sought a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence and on the basis of ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsel. We conclude that Chesir's motion was procedurally barred because he twice previously sought postconviction and appellate relief and did not articulate an adequate reason for failing to raise these issues in those previous postconviction proceedings. See State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 181-82, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) (postconviction claims that could have been raised in prior postconviction or appellate proceedings are barred absent a sufficient reason for failing to raise the claims in the earlier proceeding). We therefore affirm the circuit court's order.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Pro Se/ Defense Competency/ Evidence
  
  State v. McReynolds
  Docket: 2007AP000883 08-05-08
  State v. McReynolds
  Docket: 2007AP002289 08-05-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Hajji McReynolds appeals a judgment convicting him of three counts of soliciting women to work as prostitutes for his escort service and three counts of bail jumping. He also appeals an order denying a postconviction motion in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He argues: (1) the court conducted an inadequate inquiry when McReynolds decided to represent himself at the preliminary examination; (2) the court's finding that McReynolds was competent to stand trial was clearly erroneous, the psychologist's report should not have been utilized because the psychologist had a conflict of interest and McReynolds' trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the competency evaluation or request an additional evaluation; (3) the State presented insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdicts; (4) the trial court improperly allowed hearsay evidence and should have admitted an additional statement from a missing witness; and (5) McReynolds' trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant and for asking a witness a question that led to a prejudicial answer. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment and order.
• Criminal Law/ Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) / Sentencing/ Bias/ Constitutional Law-Due Process/ Plea Agreement Breach/ New Sentencing
  
  State v. Galvin
  Docket: 2007AP001276 08-06-08
  

  NEUBAUER, J. Robert M. Galvin appeals from a judgment of conviction for hit and run causing great bodily harm contrary to WIS. STAT. § 346.67(1) and a trial court order denying his postconviction motion for resentencing. Galvin contends the presentence investigation report (PSI) author's review of the district attorney's confidential work product file resulted in bias, causing the author to include inaccurate information in the PSI. Galvin argues that his due process rights were violated when the trial court then sentenced him based on that inaccurate information. Galvin argues that the PSI author's review and recommendation resulted in a breach of the plea agreement. Galvin further argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing in the interests of justice due to the improper communication of the district attorney's notes. We reject Galvin's arguments.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Bracey
  Docket: 2007AP000452 08-05-08
  

  PER CURIAM. John Lee Bracey, III, appeals from a judgment of conviction for burglary, and from a postconviction order denying his motion for modification of his consecutive reconfinement and burglary sentences. The issue is whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by unfairly emphasizing certain factors over other more mitigating circumstances, and for imposing a "needlessly harsh" consecutive sentence. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion when it explained why it imposed a nine-year burglary sentence to run consecutive to the reconfinement period it also imposed. The fact that the trial court could have exercised its discretion differently, specifically by imposing a lesser sentence, or by imposing that sentence concurrently does not constitute an erroneous exercise of discretion. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Restitution/ Waiver Of Issue/ Objection
  
  State v. Tostado
  Docket: 2007AP001105 08-05-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Juana O. Tostado appeals from a judgment of conviction for two thefts, and from a postconviction order summarily denying her motion to modify the amount of restitution. The issue is whether the trial court was obliged to sua sponte consider Tostado's ability to pay the $204,687 it ordered in restitution. We conclude that Tostado waived her objection by failing to present evidence of her inability to pay the ordered restitution. Therefore, we affirm.
• Employment Law/ Police/ Jurisdiction/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  Thomas v. Milwaukee City Board
  Docket: 2007AP001771 08-05-08
  

  WEDEMEYER, J. The Milwaukee City Board of Fire and Police Commissioners appeals from a circuit court order remanding the matter to the Board for an appeal hearing. The Board also appeals from an order denying its motion seeking reconsideration. The Board contends that the circuit court erred, claiming that because Thomas resided outside the City of Milwaukee, she vacated her position as a matter of law; and therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to hold a hearing on Thomas's claim that the Police Chief erred in removing Thomas from the City of Milwaukee Police force. Because the circuit court did not err in ruling that the Board has jurisdiction to hear Thomas's appeal of her removal from office, we affirm.
• Family Law/ TPR/ Jury Trial/ Stipulations/ Procedure/ Statutes/ Harmless Error
  
  Manitowoc County v. Allen J.
  Docket: 2007AP001494 08-07-08
  Recommended for Publication
  Manitowoc County v. Allen J.
  Docket: 2007AP001495 08-07-08
  Recommended for Publication
  

  BROWN, C.J. Allen J. appeals from orders terminating his parental rights to his children, Brandon and Stephanie J. He argues that he was deprived of his right to a jury trial because the court, rather than the jury, answered one of the verdict questions on an element of parental unfitness. Allen's counsel had stipulated that the element was satisfied, but Allen argues that he did not personally agree to withdraw his jury demand on the element. We put this appeal on hold pending the supreme court's resolution of Walworth County DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, __ Wis. 2d __, 749 N.W.2d 168. In that case, the supreme court held that the parties' stipulation to one element of parental unfitness did not constitute a withdrawal of a jury trial demand because the jury, rather than the court, answered the verdict question and there was ample evidence to support the element. Id., ¶3. The court went on to hold that even if the stipulation had been a withdrawal of the jury trial demand on the element, it was not error for the circuit court not to hold a personal colloquy with the defendant where the defendant personally agreed to the stipulation in open court, the stipulation was to a single, undisputed, paper element, and there was ample uncontroverted evidence to support the stipulated element. Id., ¶4.
• Family Law/ TPR/ Statutes/ Best Interests Of Child/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. George B.
  Docket: 2008AP001225 08-05-08
  

  FINE, J. George B. appeals the order terminating his parental rights to Georgia B., contending that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in finding that termination would be in Georgia's best interests. We affirm.
• Inmates/ Writ Of Habeas Corpus/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
  
  Thomas v. Schwarz
  Docket: 2007AP001184 08-06-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Dwayne G. Thomas appeals from the order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his revocation hearing. We conclude that Thomas has not established that he received ineffective assistance of revocation counsel, and we affirm the order of the circuit court.
• Inmates/ Writ Of Habeas Corpus/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Statutes/ Procedure/ Plea Agreements/ Appeals
  
  Panama v. Hepp
  Docket: 2008AP000084 08-07-08
  Recommended for Publication
  

  PER CURIAM. Jarrad Panama filed a motion seeking to extend the time to file a postconviction motion in this matter, on the grounds that counsel and this court failed to identify an arguably meritorious plea-breach issue during Panama's prior no-merit appeal. Because we had already affirmed Panama's judgment of conviction in the no-merit proceeding, we construed the extension motion as a Knight petition and directed the parties to file memoranda. In State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 520, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992), the supreme court determined that a habeas corpus petition filed in the court of appeals is the proper vehicle for raising claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
• Insurance/ Preclusion/ Subrogation/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  Richland County v. Franklin Farmers' Mutual
  Docket: 2007AP001682 08-07-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Richland County appeals a summary judgment order dismissing its action against Franklin Farmers' Mutual Insurance Company and Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company in which it sought recovery of funds it expended for John Sheire's medical bills. The circuit court concluded that the County's claim was precluded by an earlier action in Sauk County, and any entitlement to relief from the Sauk County judgment should have been pursued in Sauk County with a motion under WIS. STAT. § 806.07. The County argues that the Sauk County judgment was procured by fraud on the court, and claim preclusion does not apply because there was no identity of the causes of action. The County also argues that WIS. STAT. § 49.89(8)(a) should be construed to allow the County to file a separate action to recover medical assistance payments, even if it was a party to the earlier action. We reject these arguments and affirm the order.
• Medical Malpractice/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Failure To Prosecute/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  Snapp v. Rivera
  Docket: 2007AP002407 08-05-08
  

  KESSLER, J. Jonathan Snapp appeals from an order dismissing his medical malpractice claims against Manuel A. Rivera, M.D.; James L. Knavel, M.D.; Aurora Lakeland Medical Center and Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund. He argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it dismissed his claims for failure to prosecute, based on his failure to take any action in the case for nearly a year after remittitur from our court. We conclude that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it dismissed the claims because Snapp's failure to prosecute was not egregious and, therefore, dismissal was not justified under WIS. STAT. § 805.03 (2005-06). We also conclude that WIS. STAT. § 808.08(3) was not applicable and therefore could not serve as a basis to dismiss the claims. Therefore, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.
• OWI/ Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC)/ Traffic Stops/ Probable Cause/ Evidence/ Arrest
  
  State v. Bielmeier
  Docket: 2008AP000122 08-07-08
  

  BRIDGE, J. Daniel C. Bielmeier appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, second offense. He challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the results of a preliminary breath test (PBT). He contends that the arresting officer did not have the requisite probable cause under WIS. STAT. § 343.303 to administer the test, and, hence, did not have probable cause for the arrest. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
• OWI/ Reasonable Suspicion/ Probable Cause/ Traffic Stops/ Evidence/ Constitutional Law/ Searches
  
  State v. Popke
  Docket: 2008AP000446 08-07-08
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. Michael L. Popke appeals a judgment against him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant as a third offense contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 346.63(1)(a) and 346.65(2)(g)3. Popke pled no contest to the charge following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Popke argues that the arresting officer had neither probable cause to pull him over for violating WIS. STAT. § 346.05 nor reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances to initiate a stop for some other traffic or criminal violation. Because we conclude that neither probable cause existed to justify the stop for a violation of § 346.05 nor reasonable suspicion existed to believe that Popke committed any other traffic or criminal violation, we reverse the order to suppress evidence and the judgment of conviction.
• Property/ Partition/ Statutes/ Evidence
  
  O'Connell v. O'Connell
  Docket: 2007AP000974 08-07-08
  

  PER CURIAM. Gerald O'Connell appeals the circuit court's order in this ongoing family dispute over property in northern Wisconsin on Spider Lake. This case was previously before us. See O'Connell v. O'Connell, 2005 WI App 51, 279 Wis. 2d 406, 694 N.W.2d 429. Gerald's primary argument on appeal is that the circuit court erred in denying his claim for disproportionately born expenses under WIS. STAT. § 842.14(4) (2005-06). We affirm.
• Property/ Sales/ Contract/ Damages
  
  Osborn v. Dennison
  Docket: 2007AP001799 08-06-08
  Recommended for Publication
  

  ANDERSON, P.J. Douglas and Martha Osborn appeal from a judgment of the circuit court holding that by not directing the return of Harold Dennison's earnest money after a failed residential real estate transaction, they irrevocably elected liquidated damages as their remedy and forfeited their right to sue for actual damages. We affirm the holding of the circuit court.