No decisions were released.

• Constitutional Law/ Federal Statute/ Administrative Rules/ Firearms
  
  Koll v. Department of Justice
  Docket: 2008AP002027 04-01-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  SNYDER, J. The Department of Justice appeals from an order requiring the DOJ to issue a handgun permit to Joseph E. Koll, Jr. The DOJ contends that the circuit court erred when it reversed a DOJ decision to deny Koll's permit request based on a conviction for disorderly conduct in 1998. At issue is whether Koll was convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, as defined 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A)(2006), which would preclude Koll from obtaining a handgun. Our review of the record reveals that Koll was convicted of "non-domestic" disorderly conduct; however the charging documents describe a domestic relationship between Koll and the victim. That is sufficient, under U.S. v. Hayes, 555 U.S. ___ (2009) (No. 07-608) (Feb. 24, 2009), to serve as a predicate offense barring Koll from possessing a gun. The DOJ also appeals from an order awarding costs and fees to Koll. Because we reverse the circuit court's order to issue the gun permit, costs and fees are not available to Koll. Accordingly, we reverse both orders of the circuit court.
• Contracts/ Verdicts/ Evidence/ Damages
  
  Bucyrus International v. Price Erecting
  Docket: 2008AP002088 03-31-09
  

  FINE, J. Bucyrus International, Inc., appeals a judgment entered on a jury verdict after the trial court changed the answer to one of the questions. See WIS. STAT. § 805.14(5)(c) ("Any party may move the court to change an answer in the verdict on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the answer."). Bucyrus claims that the trial court erred because the verdict answer was supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Evidence Ruling/ Miranda/ Custody/ Rescue Doctrine/ Jury Instructions
  
  State v. Nichols
  Docket: 2008AP000940 03-31-09
  

  BRUNNER, J. James Nichols appeals a judgment of conviction for second-degree intentional homicide with the use of a dangerous weapon, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 940.05(1) and 939.63, being a felon in possession of a firearm, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 941.29(2)(a), and hiding a corpse, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 940.11(2), all as a habitual criminal under WIS. STAT. § 939.62(1)(c). Nichols contends the circuit court erroneously admitted other acts evidence and should have suppressed statements he made to police. He also contends the court should not have instructed the jury on second-degree intentional homicide. We affirm the judgment.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Search & Seizure/ Harmless Error/ Warrants/ Probable Cause
  
  State v. Romero
  Docket: 2007AP002856 04-02-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Jeik Romero appeals a judgment convicting him of first-degree intentional homicide as a party to the crime. Before charging Romero, police searched his residence and a vehicle parked outside his residence. On appeal, Romero contends that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized during those searches. We conclude that the circuit court properly allowed the State to use the evidence found in the vehicle. We also conclude that, if the circuit court erred by refusing to suppress the evidence found in the house, the court's error was harmless. We therefore affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Judges/ Procedure/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  State v. Wisth
  Docket: 2008AP001748 03-31-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  KESSLER, J. William Allen Wisth appeals from a judgment of conviction for one felony count of issuing a worthless check, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 943.24(2) (2003-04). Wisth raises a single issue on appeal: whether the trial court erroneously denied his request to substitute the assigned judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 971.20(5), where Wisth's request was made prior to sentencing after his probation was revoked. We conclude that § 971.20(5) allows for substitution only prior to the time the defendant is determined to be guilty or not guilty, whether by a factfinder or based on a guilty or no-contest plea.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing Modification
  
  State v. Wade
  Docket: 2008AP000195 04-01-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Henry T. Wade III has appealed from a judgment convicting him of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of WIS. STAT. § 941.29(2)(a) (2007-08), and from an order denying postconviction relief. The trial court sentenced Wade to six years, consisting of three years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, consecutive to sentences he was then serving. Wade moved for sentence modification and the trial court denied the motion. We affirm the judgment and the order denying sentence modification.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing Modification/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Malone
  Docket: 2008AP002034 03-31-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Norman Lee Malone, pro se, appeals an order denying his second motion to modify his sentence. He contends he was sentenced on inaccurate information. He further claims that he received an unduly harsh and lengthy sentence after the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion and directed his probation officer, who had testified against him, to prepare the presentence investigation report. Malone's claims are either procedurally barred or meritless, so we affirm the order.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Choice
  Docket: 2008AP000798 03-31-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Benny Odell Choice appeals from a corrected judgment of conviction for multiple armed robberies and a related firearm offense, and from a postconviction order denying his sentence modification motion. The issue is whether the trial court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion for allegedly failing to adequately explain its: sentence, departure from the presentence investigator's recommendation, consecutive sentence structure, consideration of mitigating factors, and imposition of a disparately harsh sentence as compared to that of Choice's co-actor. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion in all the challenged respects; the fact that it did so differently than Choice had hoped does not constitute a misuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Resentencing/ Sentencing Guidelines
  
  State v. Thomas
  Docket: 2008AP001754 03-31-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Kendel Labren Thomas appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of armed robbery with use of force, as party to a crime, and from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Thomas argues he is entitled to resentencing because the circuit court failed to consider the applicable sentencing guidelines. We conclude the court appropriately established its consideration of the guidelines. We therefore affirm the judgment and order.
• Criminal Law/ Statutes/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Sentencing
  
  State v. Carl
  Docket: 2008AP000933 03-31-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Nicholas J. Carl, pro se, appeals from an order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2007-08) motion. Among other things, Carl claims he was charged under a non-existent statute and counsel was ineffective for failing to discover and prevent the error. Carl's arguments are premised on a faulty understanding of the statutes. We therefore reject his arguments and affirm the order.
• Employment Law/ Non-Compete Clause/ Contracts/ Tortious Interference/ Damages/ Duty Of Loyalty
  
  Techworks, L.L.C. v. Wille
  Docket: 2008AP001702 03-31-09
  

  FINE, J. Techworks, LLC, appeals the circuit court's order dismissing on summary judgment Techworks's claims against David M. Wille, Red Anvil, LLC, and Patrick Dolan. Techworks's operative complaint asserted that: (1) Wille, a former Techworks employee, breached his non-compete agreement with Techworks by working for Red Anvil, Techworks's competitor; (2) Wille breached his agreement with Techworks not to solicit Techworks's customers; (3) Dolan, a former Techworks employee, breached his non-compete agreement with Techworks by trying to get Techworks's employees "to quit their jobs at Techworks and to join him in a move to Red Anvil"; (4) Wille breached his "duty of loyalty" to Techworks by allegedly "using Techworks' confidential information to compete with Techworks while employed by it"; (5) Dolan and Red Anvil conspired to take Techworks's confidential business information, in violation of WIS. STAT. § 134.01 and Wisconsin's common law; (6) Dolan and Red Anvil tortiously interfered with Techworks's contracts with its employees by trying to get some of those employees to leave Techworks and work for Red Anvil in violation of those employees' non-compete agreements with Techworks; and (7) Wille and Red Anvil tortiously interfered with Techworks's business relationships with its customers. The circuit court held that the non-compete agreement was invalid and that there were no genuine issues of material fact on the other issues so that the defendants were entitled to judgment dismissing Techworks's complaint. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
• Guardianship/ Best Interest Of Ward
  
  Supportive Community Services v. Riordon
  Docket: 2008AP000674 04-02-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Jan and Timothy Riordan appeal from orders denying a series of petitions they filed seeking guardianship of Arlee C., the termination of Supportive Community Services (SCS) as Arlee's guardian, and related matters. We affirm the orders for the reasons discussed below.
• Inmates/ Department of Corrections/ Jurisdiction/ Parole/ Department of Corrections Regulations
  
  Collins v. Graham
  Docket: 2008AP001513 03-31-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Leonard Collins appeals pro se from a circuit court order affirming a decision issued by the Parole Commission of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. Because we conclude that the Commission kept within its jurisdiction, acted according to law, properly exercised its discretion, and made a reasonable decision based upon the record, we affirm.
• OWI/ Evidence/ Statutes
  
  State v. Houle
  Docket: 2008AP002370 04-01-09
  

  SNYDER, J. Jesse J. Houle, IV appeals from a judgment of conviction for a third offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he had been operating his vehicle in an area held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles, as required under WIS. STAT. § 346.61. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
• OWI/ Traffic Stops/ Evidence/ Reasonable Suspicion
  
  State v. Subert
  Docket: 2008AP002819 03-31-09
  

  BRUNNER, J. The State appeals an order suppressing evidence obtained from a traffic stop. The State contends the circuit court erroneously concluded there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. We agree with the State, concluding there was reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop.
• OWI/ Traffic Stops/ Searches/ Evidence/ Constitutional Law
  
  Village of McFarland v. Keaster
  Docket: 2008AP001149 04-02-09
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. Richard Keaster appeals a judgment finding him guilty of violating a Village of McFarland ordinance adopting the state statute that prohibits driving under the influence of an intoxicant or controlled substance. Keaster challenges the validity of the police search of his vehicle that led to the evidence against him. I affirm the circuit court.
• Property/ Adverse Possession/ Damages/ Statutes
  
  Olson v. Weber
  Docket: 2008AP000048 04-02-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Sally Weber appeals an adverse possession judgment which declared that Theodore and Mary Olson had obtained title to a portion of land for which Weber was the recorded title holder, and which then awarded the Olsons damages and equitable relief for certain actions Weber had taken in relation to the disputed property. We affirm for the reasons discussed below.
• Property/ Zoning/ Jurisdiction/ Constitutional Law-Due Process/ Ordinances/ Variances/ Administrative Law/ Statutes
  
  Driehaus v. Walworth County
  Docket: 2008AP000947 04-01-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  SNYDER, J. Richard H. Driehaus appeals from an order denying his writ of certiorari petition that a zoning variance decision of the Walworth County Board of Adjustment (the Board) be reversed. Driehaus contends that the Board applied an incorrect theory of law, exceeded its jurisdiction, and arbitrarily determined that his request for an area variance to a sideyard setback should be approved. Driehaus also argues that his right to due process was violated when a judicial rotation placed his petition for writ of certiorari before a new judge without notice to the parties. We affirm the order of the circuit court.
• Towns & Cities/ Annexation/ Ordinances/ Authority/ Statutes/ Contracts
  
  Town of Brookfield v. City of Brookfield
  Docket: 2008AP000511 03-31-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  BRENNAN, J. Sanitary District No. 4 ­ Town of Brookfield ("Sanitary District") appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the City of Brookfield ("City") following a trial to the court, wherein the court dismissed the Sanitary District's complaint challenging the June 6, 2006 annexation ordinance, annexing nine properties from the Town of Brookfield ("Town") to the City. The Sanitary District makes two claims, which it contends renders the annexation ordinance invalid: (1) the City was the "real and controlling influence" in advancing the annexation petition, which violated the rule of reason governing these cases; and (2) the annexation petition was fatally defective because two limited liability property owners signed without written authorization from their respective limited liability companies ("LLCs") and one limited liability property owner authorized an employee to sign the petition instead of having a member of the LLC sign.