ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. This case is before the court on certification from the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 (2005-06). The court of appeals certified the following question: whether the police may search the personal belongings of a passenger that are found outside a motor vehicle incident to the arrest of the driver based on the reasoning in State v. Pallone, 2000 WI 77, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 613 N.W.2d 568.

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. The City of Milwaukee seeks review of a published court of appeals decision reversing an order and judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Patricia D. McMahon, Judge. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the City and dismissed Albert Loth's complaint.

HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. Denice Brunton appeals a summary judgment order dismissing her consumer protection action against Nuvell Credit Corporation. The circuit court granted Nuvell's motion for summary judgment upon concluding that under WIS. STAT. § 421.401(2)(b) (2005-06) venue was improper and therefore it lacked competency to proceed. Because we conclude that Nuvell "appear[ed] and waive[d] the improper venue" within the meaning of § 421.401(2)(b), we reverse the circuit court's order and remand for further proceedings.

KESSLER, J. Kareem Perkins a/k/a Jermaine Simms was convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver (more than fifteen but less than forty grams), contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 941.29(2) and 961.41(1m)(cm)3. (2003-04). He appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion for DNA testing and postconviction relief. Perkins argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied his motion to manually compare DNA found on a bullet-proof vest against the DNA of a man named Leon Q. Williams. We conclude that Perkins is entitled to an order allowing him to conduct the manual DNA comparison, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 974.07(6). Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court issue an order directing that the DNA test results from the vest and the DNA profile of Williams be made available to Dr. Alan Friedman, a private expert at Helix Biotech whom Perkins has selected.

PER CURIAM. Susan Wilk appeals a judgment convicting her of first-degree reckless homicide in the death of three-year-old Mercedes Caflisch. Wilk argues that she was denied a fair trial because of four evidentiary rulings: (1) the court allowed the State to present other acts evidence regarding four injuries Mercedes suffered while under Wilk's supervision; (2) the court allowed evidence of Wilk's inconsistent statements to police through her former attorney, Stephen Eisenberg; (3) the court prohibited Wilk from presenting evidence of injuries Mercedes suffered while in her parents' care; and (4) the court admitted into evidence postmortem photographs depicting cuts and bruises and a severed intestine. Wilk also requests a new trial in the interest of justice. Because we conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion regarding the evidentiary issues and because the errors, if any, are harmless, we affirm the judgment.

PER CURIAM. Andre M. Hicks appeals from a judgment of conviction for armed robbery, first-degree reckless injury, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, and from a postconviction order denying his motion to vacate the judgment and order a new trial. The issue is whether trial counsel failed to investigate and present Hicks's alibi defense, resulting in the jury finding him guilty. We conclude that trial counsel did not perform deficiently, and thus, did not provide ineffective assistance. Therefore, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. Raynard R. Jackson appeals from a postconviction order summarily denying his motion for a new trial. The issue is whether Jackson alleged a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of his original postconviction counsel for failing to seek a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence that the same group of police officers who apprehended him had engaged in misconduct similar to that which formed the basis for his defense at trial. We conclude that the trial court erred in summarily denying his postconviction motion. We therefore reverse and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing on Jackson's postconviction claims.

PER CURIAM. Machon L. Williams, pro se, appeals from a judgment convicting him of child enticement and two counts of second-degree sexual assault, as a habitual criminal, and from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Machon raises four claims of error: trial court interference with the verdict, juror misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficiency of the evidence. None are persuasive. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Sylvester Townsend appeals from an order summarily denying his postconviction motion. The issues are whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct for calling Townsend's wife to testify at his trial, and whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for respectively failing to object to this testimony, and for failing to raise this issue in original postconviction and appellate proceedings. We conclude that Townsend's alleged reasons for failing to previously raise this issue are insufficient to overcome the procedural bar of State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185-86, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Therefore, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. Anthony Alvegas Hamilton appeals from the order denying his motion for postconviction relief and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and that the circuit court committed plain error when it communicated with the jury outside of his presence. We conclude that Hamilton did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his plain error argument is barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Consequently, we affirm the orders of the circuit court.

PER CURIAM. Daniel Bolstad appeals a judgment convicting him of attempted second-degree sexual assault. He also appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. The issues are whether he received effective assistance from trial counsel, and whether we should exercise our discretion to grant him a new trial in the interest of justice. We affirm on the first issue, and deny his request for a new trial.

PER CURIAM. Antonio R. Martinez appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against him and the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He argues that the jury instructions violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury, and that a photo array used to identify him was unduly suggestive. We conclude that the jury instructions properly directed the jury to consider both counts of the crime charged. We also conclude that even assuming the photo array may have been unduly suggestive, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification of Martinez was valid. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Donnell Basley appeals a judgment and an order denying his postconviction motion for plea withdrawal following a remand from this court. We conclude that the circuit court should have granted Basley's motion based on language in our prior decision. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that Basley be granted a new trial.

PER CURIAM. Patrick James O'Brien appeals from a judgment of conviction for theft as a party to the crime, and from a postconviction order denying his motion for sentence modification. The issues are whether the trial court imposed an unduly harsh and excessive sentence, and whether the subsequent imposition of the same sentence on O'Brien's more culpable co-actor constituted a new factor warranting sentence modification to correct the alleged disparity. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion and imposed a sentence that was not unduly harsh and excessive, and that the sentence imposed by this same trial court judge on O'Brien's co-actor two weeks later was not a new sentencing factor nor did it result in disparate sentences. Therefore, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. Charles Montghue McDowell pled guilty to felony murder as a party to a crime. See WIS. STAT. §§ 940.03 and 939.05 (2003-04). The circuit court imposed a twenty-three-year prison sentence and ordered McDowell to serve a minimum of thirteen years in initial confinement and a maximum of ten years on extended supervision. McDowell sought postconviction relief, arguing that the circuit court relied on incorrect information contained in the presentence investigation report, thereby erroneously exercising its sentencing discretion. The circuit court denied the motion, and McDowell appeals. We conclude that McDowell, who was aware of the allegedly erroneous statements at sentencing and failed to object, waived further challenge. Similarly, McDowell's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the sentencing court's attention to the allegedly incorrect statements fails because it is undisputed McDowell did not notify counsel of the alleged inaccuracies.

LUNDSTEN, J. Mark Jahnke was convicted of secretly videotaping his girlfriend, without her consent, while she was nude. WISCONSIN STAT. § 942.09(2)(am)1. (2007-08) makes it a felony to record another person in the nude, without the knowledge and consent of that person, "in a circumstance in which [the recorded person] has a reasonable expectation of privacy." Jahnke argues that his girlfriend did not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" within the meaning of the statute. We disagree, and affirm the circuit court.

PER CURIAM. Glen Hong appeals from an order that denied his motion to terminate maintenance payments to his ex-wife, Annette Christopher, and found him in contempt for failing to make any payments to her for the preceding two years. We affirm for the reasons discussed below.

KESSLER, J. Robert G. Stuligross appeals pro se from a trial court order denying his motion to overturn or modify an order by a family court commissioner amending an order for child support, finding Stuligross in contempt for failing to pay previously ordered attorney fees and costs, and ordering him to pay an additional $250 in attorney fees and costs associated with the most recent hearing before the family court commissioner. Stuligross argues that the trial court erroneously denied his request for a de novo hearing on the issues addressed in the family court commissioner's order. Alternatively, he argues that if he is not entitled to a de novo hearing, then the order should nonetheless be reversed because of other errors. We conclude that the plain language of WIS. STAT. § 757.69(8) (2005-06) entitles Stuligross to a de novo hearing. Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions that a de novo hearing be conducted before the trial court. We do not consider the other issues Stuligross raises. See Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300, 277 N.W. 663 (1938) (only dispositive issues need to be addressed).

ANDERSON, P.J. Bryant A. claims his trial counsel was ineffective for multiple reasons and the circuit court erred when it refused to vacate a partial summary judgment holding that he had failed to assume parental responsibility for his son Brell J. and order a fact-finding hearing. We disagree and affirm.

PER CURIAM. James Lammers appeals a circuit court order that dismissed his petition for habeas corpus review of his competence to defend against prison disciplinary proceedings and the effect of his mental illness on the conduct underlying the disciplinary actions. The circuit court concluded that habeas did not lie because certiorari review was an adequate alternate remedy that Lammers had failed to timely pursue. We previously issued a decision affirming the circuit court on the alternate ground that the allegations in Lammers' writ petition were insufficient to warrant the relief sought. The Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily vacated our decision because the parties had not been afforded an opportunity to address the issue on which we decided the appeal. It remanded to this court "for further proceedings, to include supplemental briefing and consideration of the legal sufficiency of the petition for writ of habeas corpus."

LUNDSTEN, J. Gene Blanchar appeals the circuit court's order dismissing his WIS. STAT. § 100.18(1) misrepresentation claim against Lake Land Builders, Inc., and Chad Strutzel, Lake Land's sole stockholder. Blanchar entered into a contract to purchase a vacant lot from Lake Land, then entered into a second contract to have Lake Land construct a home on the lot. The purchase price of the lot was contingent on Blanchar hiring Lake Land to do the construction.