No decisions were released.

• Appeal Barred/ Inmates/ Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  
  Arthur v. State of Wisconsin
  Docket: 2007AP002244 02-10-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Bobby Arthur appeals from an order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The issue is whether Arthur is entitled to habeas corpus relief to litigate his claim of newly discovered evidence of extraneous information. We conclude that habeas corpus is an inappropriate remedy for the relief Arthur seeks, and that this same issue has been previously litigated, also barring its re-litigation. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence
  
  State v. Thompson
  Docket: 2008AP001698 02-10-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Wilbert Willie Thompson appeals from a judgment, entered on a jury's verdict, convicting him of one count of burglary as a habitual criminal, and from an order denying his motion to vacate the conviction. Thompson asserts there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We disagree and affirm the judgment and order.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Evidence
  
  State v. Duke
  Docket: 2008AP000301 02-10-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Carle Duke appeals from a judgment of conviction for two counts of delivery of cocaine and an order denying postconviction relief. Duke claims he is entitled to a new trial because his trial counsel failed to impeach the State's key witness with his multiple prior convictions. We conclude Duke has not established he was prejudiced by any deficient representation. Accordingly, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Evidence/ Defense/ Witness Sequestration
  
  State v. Brown
  Docket: 2008AP000888 02-10-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Devin Lee Brown, pro se, appeals from an order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2005-06) motion. Brown asserts postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise claims that trial counsel was ineffective. We conclude trial counsel was not ineffective, which means postconviction counsel was not ineffective for failing to so allege. We therefore affirm the order.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Sentencing/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Johnston
  Docket: 2007AP002291 02-11-09
  State v. Johnston
  Docket: 2007AP002912 02-11-09
  

  PER CURIAM. In this appeal from four convictions for second-degree recklessly endangering safety and the denial of his postconviction motion, Todd Johnston challenges the assistance he received from his trial counsel and the circuit court's exercise of sentencing discretion. We conclude that Johnston was not prejudiced by his trial counsel's representation, and the circuit court properly exercised its sentencing discretion. We affirm the judgments of conviction and the order denying Johnston's postconviction motion.
• Criminal Law/ Plea Withdrawal / Self Defense/ Statutes/ Plea Colloquy
  
  State v. McEuens
  Docket: 2008AP000165 02-10-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Donald McEuens, Jr., appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion for plea withdrawal. The issue is whether McEuens was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his plea withdrawal motion, pursuant to which he claimed that he was not adequately informed of: (1) the elements of the offense to which he pled guilty; (2) the applicability of self-defense; and (3) the consequential forfeiture of his right to a unanimous twelve-person jury to determine his guilt. We conclude that the trial court did not err by summarily denying his plea withdrawal motion because McEuens had not made a prima facie showing that his plea colloquy was inadequate; moreover, his claims were conclusively belied by the record. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Withdrawal/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Sentencing/ Jurisdiction
  
  State v. Chaney
  Docket: 2008AP000395 02-10-09
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Altonio Laroy Chaney, pro se, appeals the judgment, entered following his Alford plea, convicting him of first-degree sexual assault of a child, as a party to the crime, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 948.02(1) (amended eff. June 6, 2006) and 939.05 (2005-06). He also appeals from the order denying his postconviction motion. On appeal, Chaney contends that: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to withdraw his plea because a manifest injustice had occurred; (2) his attorney was ineffective in several respects; and (3) his sentence was unduly harsh. Because the record reflects that Chaney knew what "party to a crime" liability was; the complaint contained sufficient facts to provide a factual basis for his plea; Chaney's attorney was not ineffective for failing to investigate a possible misidentification or for failing to move for severance; and no manifest injustice occurred requiring withdrawal of his plea, therefore, the trial court did not err in denying his motion. Moreover, the severance issue was not raised below, and thus, is waived. Finally, this court has no jurisdiction over Chaney's claim that his sentence was unduly harsh. Consequently, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Restitution/ Statutes/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Vanbeek
  Docket: 2008AP001275 02-11-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  NEUBAUER, J. Derick G. Vanbeek was convicted of making a bomb scare at Markesan High School--intentionally conveying a false threat "to destroy any property by the means of explosives," contrary to WIS. STAT. § 947.015 (2007-08). Vanbeek appeals from that portion of his judgment of conviction requiring restitution to the Markesan School District in the amount of $15,796.89 for salaries and benefits paid to teachers and staff during the resulting evacuation. Vanbeek argues that the trial court did not have the authority to require restitution to the school district because it is not the direct victim of the crime considered at sentencing for purposes of WIS. STAT. § 973.20. We reject Vanbeek's argument. We conclude that the school district was the direct victim of Vanbeek's crime--the false threat to destroy school district property by means of explosives--and, as such, the district is entitled to restitution under § 973.20 for losses it incurred. We affirm the judgment and order denying Vanbeek's postconviction motion challenging the restitution order.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing Credit/ Custody/ Probation Revocation/ Statutes
  
  State v. Baker
  Docket: 2008AP000883 02-10-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Douglas Baker, pro se, appeals from an order denying sentence credit. We conclude that during the time period for which he seeks credit, Baker was in custody serving a sentence that had no connection with the sentence in this case. We therefore affirm the order.
• Eviction/ Landlord-Tenant/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  McQuestion v. Crawford
  Docket: 2008AP001096 02-10-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Brian Crawford appeals from the judgment of eviction lifting the emergency assistance stay and requiring him to move from the premises owned by Dirk McQuestion. Crawford submits that pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 799.40(4) (2007-08), the trial court did not have the authority to lift an emergency assistance stay after he was found eligible for emergency assistance, see WIS. STAT. § 49.138, because the statute requires the court to stay the eviction action "until the tenant receives the emergency assistance," no matter how long it takes the tenant to find suitable housing. We conclude that implicit in the statute is the requirement that the stay under this provision is in effect for only a reasonable period of time. Thus, we affirm.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Child Support/ Arrears/ Statutes
  
  Thalacker v. Thalacker
  Docket: 2007AP002567 02-10-09
  

  PER CURIAM. John Thalacker, Jr., appeals from an order revising child support arrears. John argues he is entitled to additional credits. We reject his arguments and affirm.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Child Support/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  Anderson v. Anderson
  Docket: 2008AP002418 02-11-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Brian Lee Anderson appeals from the order of the family court that denied his motion to reduce child support. Brian argues that the family court erred when it denied his motion because it did not adopt the statutory presumption that there has been a substantial change in circumstances after thirty-three months. WIS. STAT. § 767.59(1f)(b)2 (2005-06). We conclude that the family court properly exercised its discretion and did not err as a matter of law. Consequently, we summarily affirm the order of the family court. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Child Support/ Paternity/ Estoppel/ Public Policy/ Statute Presumption/ Interveners
  
  State v. Skarzynski
  Docket: 2008AP000723 02-10-09
  Hendrick v. Hendrick
  Docket: 2008AP000722 02-10-09
  
  

  FINE, J. We have consolidated the following two cases on appeal: State v. Skarzynski, 2008AP723, a paternity action instituted by the State of Wisconsin against Christopher L. Skarzynski, and Hendrick v. Hendrick, 2008AP722, an action started by Jennifer Hendrick seeking a divorce from Garry M. Hendrick. For ease of analysis, we address the two appeals separately, discussing the appeal in -723 first.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Maintenance/ Statutes/ Prenuptial Agreement/ Contracts
  
  Meis v. Kordus
  Docket: 2008AP000111 02-10-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Charlene Meis, formerly Kordus, appeals from a judgment of divorce in which the circuit court determined that a premarital agreement between Meis and Randall Kordus was procedurally and substantively equitable. Meis claims she did not enter into the premarital agreement voluntarily and freely. She also claims the agreement was unfair upon divorce. We affirm.
• Family Law/ TPR/ Evidence/ Statutes
  
  Crawford County D.H.S. v. Rose M.O.
  Docket: 2008AP002404 02-12-09
  Crawford County D.H.S. v. Rose M.O.
  Docket: 2008AP002405 02-12-09
  Crawford County D.H.S. v. Rose M.O.
  Docket: 2008AP002406 02-12-09
  
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. Rose M.O. appeals the circuit court's orders terminating her parental rights to her children, Fantasia O., Elric O., and Lorenia O. Rose argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at the dispositional phase of the proceedings. Specifically, she argues that the court failed to consider, as required by WIS. STAT. § 48.426(3)(c), whether severing her substantial relationship with the children would be harmful to them. We disagree, and affirm the orders.
• Family Law/ TPR/ Right To Counsel/ Statutes/ New Evidence/ Excusable Neglect
  
  Brown County v. Janice W.
  Docket: 2008AP002062 02-10-09
  

  BRUNNER, J. Janice W. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to Precious W. She also appeals an order denying her post-termination motion for relief from the termination order. Janice claims the circuit court should have granted her motion for relief from the termination order because she was in custody at the time of the hearing, she was unaware of the hearing, and she was denied her right to counsel. We affirm the orders.
• Garnishment/ Jurisdiction/ Statutes/ Creditor/ Debtor/ Benefits
  
  Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Navas
  Docket: 2008AP002158 02-11-09
  

  SNYDER, J. Rosaline and Angel Navas (Angel) appeal from a June 4, 2008, court order that continued the garnishment of Angel's wages from his employer, Badger Federal Services, Inc., based upon a prior money judgment entered in favor of Farmers & Merchants Bank (the Bank). Angel contends that he was exempt from wage garnishment because he had received or was eligible for need-based public assistance. The Bank did not file a response brief. We reverse the garnishment order. Angel also seeks relief from an assignment of wage agreement that he entered into with the Bank. We conclude that we have no jurisdiction over that matter.
• Inmates/ Department of Corrections Regulations/ Summary Judgment/ Immunity/ Statutes
  
  Johnson v. Gilbert
  Docket: 2008AP000324 02-12-09
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. Micha'el Johnson, an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF) in Boscobel, Wisconsin, at the times relevant to this action, appeals pro se an order granting the motion of the defendants, Michael Sherman and Timothy Gilberg, for summary judgment and dismissing his action. We affirm.
• Insurance/ Small Claim/ Default Judgment/ Jurisdictions/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  American Family v. Warden
  Docket: 2008AP001678 02-10-09
  

  CURLEY, P.J. American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American Family) appeals an order reopening a small claims default judgment and dismissing its action, which emanated out of an automobile accident. The default judgment was entered in June 1997. American Family contends that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it granted Anthony Warden's motion to reopen the judgment and dismiss the action after Warden showed the court proof that he was incarcerated in Illinois at the time of the accident. Because the service by publication on Warden was defective, the original trial court had no personal jurisdiction and the judgment is void. Thus, this court affirms the trial court's ruling, albeit on other grounds. See State v. Holt, 128 Wis. 2d 110, 124-25, 382 N.W.2d 679 (Ct. App. 1985) (We may affirm a trial court's decision on other grounds even if we do not agree with its reasoning.).
• Medical Malpractice/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  Schmidt v. Froedtert Memorial Lutheran
  Docket: 2007AP002964 02-12-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Steven R. Schmidt appeals from the orders of the circuit court that dismissed his claims against Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, Inc., Dr. Monica Ziebert, Dr. Carol A. Wood, GAMP (General Assistance Medical Plan) Health Services, The Commonwealth Fund, Aurora St. Luke's Hospital, and Abbott Laboratories. Schmidt argues that the statute limiting medical practice liability, WIS. STAT. ch. 655 (2007-08), is unconstitutional. Because we conclude that the circuit court properly dismissed this action, we affirm.
• Small Claims/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Default Judgment/ Creditor/ Debtor
  
  Medical College of Wisconsin v. Missimer
  Docket: 2008AP000836 02-10-09
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Karyn T. Missimer appeals the order dismissing without prejudice the small claims action filed against her by the Medical College of Wisconsin (Medical College). She submits that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it failed to dismiss the case with prejudice. Because the record contains no information that conclusively shows that the Medical College itself acted in an egregious fashion or contributed to the events which led the court to dismiss the case, this court affirms. See Industrial Roofing Servs., Inc. v Marquardt, 2007 WI 19, ¶61, 299 Wis. 2d 81, 726 N.W.2d 898 (Imputing the attorney's conduct to the client where the client is blameless is an erroneous exercise of discretion.).
• Trust/ Property/ Easements/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation/ Deeds/ Riparian
  
  Partridge v. Georges
  Docket: 2008AP001052 02-11-09
  

  PER CURIAM. This appeal involves the scope of a lake-access easement. Tamara Partridge as trustee of the Tamara L. Partridge Revocable Trust and Debra L. Partridge as trustee of the Debra L. Partridge Declaration of Trust (the Partridges) have an easement over the riparian servient estate Chris Georges owns. Georges appeals the judgment concluding that the Partridges' easement entitles the Partridges to place and maintain a pier. We affirm.
• Worker's Compensation/ LIRC/ Statutes/ Application Of Statutes/ Final Awards
  
  Schreiber Foods v. L.I.R.C.
  Docket: 2008AP001977 02-10-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  PETERSON, J. Schreiber Foods, Inc., seeks to reopen a worker's compensation decision by the Labor and Industry Review Commission. The Commission had awarded loss of earning capacity benefits to an injured employee. After the award, Schreiber rehired the employee and sought to vacate the award because the employee was now working. The Commission concluded the award was final and could not be vacated.
• Worker's Compensation/ Motor Vehicle Law/ Negligence/ Procedure/ Summary Judgment
  
  Kuehl v. Sentry Select Insurance
  Docket: 2008AP001681 02-10-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  HOOVER, P.J. Lee Kuehl appeals a summary judgment dismissing his action because it was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Compensation Act. Kuehl argues the circuit court erroneously applied the negligent operation of a motor vehicle exception to coemployee immunity. We disagree and affirm.