No decisions were released.

• Contracts/ Evidence/ Statutes/ Estoppel/ Negligence/ Summary Judgment/ Experts
  
  Racine County v. Oracular, Milwaukee, Inc.
  Docket: 2007AP002861 04-08-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  ANDERSON, P.J. Racine County appeals from the circuit court's decision that its contract with Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., was a contract for "professional services"; to recover, the County had to prove professional negligence; and expert testimony was required "as a matter of law." We reverse, because Oracular does not possess the indicia of a "professional"; the contract between the parties was a simple contract for "services"; and expert testimony is not required when a party's conduct is within the realm of the ordinary experience of the average juror.
• Criminal Law/ Constitutional Law/ Privacy/ Evidence/ Search & Seizure
  
  State v. Russ
  Docket: 2008AP001641 04-07-09
  State v. Russ
  Docket: 2008AP001641E 04-10-09
  

  FINE, J. Elliot B. Russ, Sr., appeals a judgment entered after he pled no-contest to uttering a forged document involving the false notarization of affidavits. See WIS. STAT. § 943.38(2). He claims that the circuit court improperly denied his motion to suppress. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence Ruling/ Harmless Error
  
  State v. Schmidt
  Docket: 2008AP002484 04-09-09
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. Tyler Schmidt appeals a circuit court judgment convicting him of lewd and lascivious behavior in violation of WIS. STAT. § 944.20(1)(b). He argues that the erroneous admission of other acts evidence at his jury trial entitles him to a new trial. I conclude that the admission of the other acts evidence was error and that the error was not harmless. I therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Evidence
  
  State v. Sandoval
  Docket: 2008AP000482 04-08-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  ANDERSON, P.J. Juan Sandoval argues that he is entitled to a new trial because he believes his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue the proper basis for excluding the State's rebuttal witness and by failing to impeach the witness with his prior inconsistent statements. For the reasons discussed, Sandoval's request is denied and we affirm the trial court.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ New Trial
  
  State v. Day
  Docket: 2007AP000427 04-08-09
  

  PER CURIAM. David A. Day appeals pro se from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, one count of exposing a child to harmful materials, and one count of child enticement. He also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the judgment and the order.
• Criminal Law/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Hearings
  
  State v. Poolo
  Docket: 2008AP000930 04-08-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Brad Poolo appeals pro se from a circuit court order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2007-08) motion without a hearing. We agree with the circuit court that Poolo was not entitled to relief from his 2006 convictions for operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance (5th offense) contrary to WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(am) (2005-06) and felony bail jumping contrary to WIS. STAT. § 946.49(1)(b). We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Juries/ Verdicts/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Right To Counsel/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
  
  State v. Becker
  Docket: 2007AP002941 04-08-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  ANDERSON, P.J. Christopher F. Becker was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child. He filed a postconviction motion alleging that the manner in which the trial court responded to a jury question deprived him of a unanimous jury verdict on both counts. The motion was denied. Becker appeals both his conviction and the denial of his postconviction motion, claiming that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it inaccurately responded to a critical jury question and that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to the trial court's incomplete and misleading answer to that jury question. We affirm the judgment and order.
• Criminal Law/ Plea Withdrawal/ Knowingly, Voluntarily and Intelligently
  
  State v. Koll
  Docket: 2008AP001403 04-08-09
  State v. Koll
  Docket: 2008AP001404 04-08-09
  

  NEUBAUER, J. Joseph E. Koll, Jr., appeals from circuit court judgments and orders denying his postconviction motion for plea withdrawal. Koll argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his no contest pleas because they were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Because Koll was actively misinformed as to a collateral consequence of his plea agreement and because the misinformation went to the heart of the plea agreement, we agree that he is entitled to plea withdrawal. We reverse the judgments and orders and remand with directions.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Withdrawal
  
  State v. Baugh
  Docket: 2008AP001507 04-07-09
  

  PER CURIAM. William Baugh appeals the part of a judgment of conviction that convicts him of burglary-committing a battery during the burglary. He also appeals an order denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because we conclude the plea was not properly taken due to misinformation about the elements of the offense, we reverse that part of the judgment and the order denying the postconviction motion and remand the matter for further proceedings.
• Criminal Law/ Right To Defense/ Evidence/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Yang
  Docket: 2008AP002332 04-07-09
  

  HOOVER, P.J. Jacob Yang appeals a judgment of conviction for armed robbery. Yang argues the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion and deprived him of his right to present a complete defense when it limited inquiry into whether the physical evidence had been DNA tested. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
• Default Judgment/ Answer/ Excusable Neglect/ Statutes/ Procedure
  
  Johnson v. Roma's E.T., Inc.
  Docket: 2008AP001396 04-08-09
  

  ANDERSON, P.J. Roma II ­ Waterford, LLC, is appealing the circuit court's order granting default judgment to Shawn Johnson and denying its motion for reconsideration. Roma II asserts that the default judgment is unfair because its failure to answer three of the four causes of action was the result of a mistake made by its attorney, a lack of attention to detail. We reverse because Roma II did timely file an amended answer that joined all the causes of action. We decline to address its suggestion that today's technology requires us to develop a definition of "mistake" that takes into consideration "technologically based mistakes," such as computer printing errors.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Maintenance
  
  Francis v. Francis
  Docket: 2008AP001569 04-08-09
  

  PER CURIAM. This is the third appeal arising from the parties' 1997 divorce. Maureen M. Francis appeals an order reducing the amount and limiting the duration of post-divorce maintenance paid to her by her former husband, Joseph N. Francis. Sufficient evidence exists from which the circuit court reasonably could find a substantial change in the parties' circumstances to justify the modification. We affirm.
• Mental Health/ Commitment/ Court's Competency/ Jurisdiction/ Statutes/ Waiver Of Jury Rights
  
  Dane County v. Thomas F.W.
  Docket: 2008AP002829 04-09-09
  

  DYKMAN, J. Thomas F.W. appeals from orders for recommitment and medication and an order denying his postdisposition motion. Thomas F.W. claims that the trial court lost competency to exercise its jurisdiction in his recommitment proceedings when the court dismissed the selected jury and postponed his jury trial for one week, thus extending the proceedings beyond the statutory time limits. We conclude that the record establishes that Thomas F.W. validly requested and received a seven-day postponement, as permitted by statute, and that the trial court therefore did not lose competency over this case. We affirm.
• OWI/ Caretaker Function/ Traffic Stops/ Evidence/ Constitutional Law
  
  State v. Truax
  Docket: 2008AP000070 04-08-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  NEUBAUER, J. The sole issue in this case is whether the officer who arrested Lance F. Truax for operating while intoxicated was engaged in a bona fide community caretaker function at the time he approached Truax's vehicle. The State of Wisconsin appeals from a trial court order dismissing its complaint against Truax. The State argues that the trial court erred in granting Truax's motion to suppress evidence of intoxication obtained as a result of the stop of his vehicle based on its finding that the officer was not engaged in community caretaker activity. We conclude that the supreme court's recent analysis in State v. Kramer, 2009 WI 14, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 759 N.W.2d 598, guides our decision and compels the determination that the officer was engaged in a bona fide community caretaker function. We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in granting Truax's motion to suppress. We reverse the trial court's dismissal order and remand with directions to reinstate the complaint.
• OWI/ Discovery/ New Trial/ Statutes/ Evidence
  
  State v. Irwin
  Docket: 2008AP001922 04-09-09
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. December Dawn Irwin appeals her judgment of conviction based on a jury verdict for operating while intoxicated and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, third offense. Irwin argues she is entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor violated WIS. STAT. § 971.23, the discovery statute, by failing to disclose a prosecution witness until two days before trial, and by failing to prove good cause for the failure to disclose. We conclude that the prosecutor's disclosure was not contrary to § 971.23(1). We therefore affirm.
• OWI/ Jurisdiction/ Towns & Cities/ Ordinances
  
  La Crosse County v. Pettis
  Docket: 2008AP002075 04-09-09
  

  DYKMAN, J. Norman Pettis appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) first offense. Pettis argues that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear La Crosse County's charge of first offense OWI, because his offense was factually his second OWI. Because only the State has jurisdiction to charge for second or subsequent OWI's, Pettis asserts, his judgment of conviction for OWI first offense in this case is void as a matter of law. We agree, and accordingly reverse and remand with directions to vacate the conviction.
• Property/ Contracts/ Specific Performance/ Statutes/ Pre & Post Judgment Interest/ Damages/ Summary Judgment
  
  Ash Park, L.L.C. v. Alexander & Bishop
  Docket: 2008AP001735 04-07-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  HOOVER, P.J. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd., appeals a summary judgment ordering specific performance of a real estate purchase contract. Alexander & Bishop, the proposed purchaser, argues (1) it was inappropriate to grant specific performance as a remedy; (2) there were disputed facts precluding summary judgment; (3) the circuit court should have granted its motion for reconsideration or relief under WIS. STAT. § 806.07; and (4) pre- and postjudgment interest was erroneously calculated based on the purchase price. We reject Alexander & Bishop's arguments and affirm the judgment and order.
• Property/ Private Nuisance
  
  Smart v. Sokolski
  Docket: 2008AP000802 04-08-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Greg and Elaine Smart appeal from an order dismissing their complaint against Jaimie and Julie Sokolski alleging that the manner in which the Sokolskis use their property constitutes a private nuisance. We agree with the circuit court that dismissal of the complaint was appropriate, and we affirm.
• Wrongful Death/ Statute Of Limitations/ Medical Malpractice/ Notice Of Injury/ Summary Judgment/ Discovery
  
  Bahn v. Santolin
  Docket: 2008AP001982 04-07-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Wayne Bahn appeals a summary judgment dismissing as time-barred his suit for the wrongful death of his wife against Dr. Craig Santolin and related health providers and insurers. Bahn argues the court erred by applying the medical malpractice statute of limitations to his action. In the alternative, he argues he timely filed within a year of discovering the injury. We disagree with Bahn's first argument. However, we conclude Bahn raised a question of material fact regarding when he knew or should have known of the injury. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.