No decisions were released.

• Class Actions/ Small Claims/ Statutes/ Default Judgment/ Collateral Attack/ Procedure
  
  Mercado v. G.E. Money Bank
  Docket: 2008AP001992 04-14-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Ada Mercado and Angela Terry appeal from a judgment dismissing their action seeking class action status and asserting violations of the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA) against GE Money Bank (GE) and Kohn Law Firm, S.C. (Kohn). The alleged violations arose out of pleading defects in underlying small claims actions filed against them; namely, GE's purported failure to satisfy the disclosure requirements set forth in WIS. STAT. § 425.109(1)(h) (2005-06).
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ New Trial/ Constitutional Law/ Brady Violation/ New Evidence
  
  State v. Heine
  Docket: 2008AP000501 04-14-09
  

  KESSLER, J. Aaron Matthew Heine, a deputy sheriff assigned to the infirmary section of the Milwaukee County Jail, was convicted of second-degree sexual assault by use of force and second-degree sexual assault by a correctional staff person, in violation of WIS. STAT. §§ 940.225(2)(a) and (h) (2005-06). He appeals from the judgment of conviction and from orders denying his motions for postconviction relief. On appeal, Heine challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, which would result in acquittal if his challenge was successful. In the alternative, he seeks a new trial on grounds that the State failed to disclose Brady evidence prior to trial, including a written statement prepared by Heine as ordered by a superior officer on the night of the alleged assault, and transcripts of internal affairs investigation interviews with Heine and the alleged victim, L.W.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Traffic Stops/ Search & Seizure/ Reasonable Suspicion
  
  State v. Shannon
  Docket: 2008AP001169 04-16-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Marquian Shannon appeals a judgment convicting him of possessing cocaine with intent to deliver it. The issue on appeal is whether police officers lawfully obtained the evidence the State used to convict Shannon when they stopped the vehicle Shannon was driving and searched it. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
  
  State v. Hegna
  Docket: 2008AP000633 04-16-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Charles Hegna appeals a judgment convicting him of fleeing an officer while operating a vehicle, possessing methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine paraphernalia, and bail jumping. He also appeals an order denying him postconviction relief. The issue is whether he received effective assistance from trial counsel. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Appeal Barred
  
  State v. Groenke
  Docket: 2008AP000411 04-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Frankie J. Groenke appeals from a circuit court order denying his postconviction motion, filed pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2003-04). In his postconviction motion, Groenke maintained that the attorney representing him in his first § 974.06 postconviction motion had been ineffective for failing to challenge inconsistencies between the facts of this case and the facts of another case of which he had been convicted. We agree with the circuit court that Groenke's motion was procedurally barred pursuant to 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 proceedings). Therefore, we affirm the circuit court's order.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Evidence/ New Trial/ Plain Error
  
  State v. Sundermeyer
  Docket: 2008AP000541 04-14-09
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Joseph Sundermeyer appeals from the judgment, entered following a jury verdict, convicting him of armed robbery by the use or threat of force and burglary, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 943.32(1)(b), (2), and 943.10(1m)(a) (2005-06). He also appeals from the order denying his postconviction motion. Sundermeyer argues that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's introduction of other acts evidence pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2). Specifically, he claims that the prosecutor's eliciting from Sundermeyer's mother on cross-examination, that she had earlier obtained a restraining order against him because he had threatened to tear up her house and destroy her property, was improper other acts evidence. He also argues that because no objection was raised, the admission of the evidence was plain error, and consequently, he is entitled to a new trial. Because Sundermeyer's attorney was not ineffective, the admitted evidence was not other acts evidence, and thus, no plain error occurred, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Plain Error/ Appeal Barred
  
  State v. Rogers
  Docket: 2008AP001643 04-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Eddie Charles Rogers appeals from a circuit court order denying his postconviction motion, nominally filed pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 901.03(4) (2007-08). The circuit court held that Rogers's claims were barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 181-182, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) (postconviction claims that could have been raised in prior postconviction or appellate proceedings are barred absent defendant articulating a sufficient reason for failing to raise the claims in the earlier proceedings). On appeal, Rogers argues that because his current postconviction claims are for "plain errors" that occurred prior to his conviction, Escalona does not apply. We disagree, and we affirm the order denying Rogers's postconviction motion.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Colloquy/ Plea Withdrawal/ Knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntarily Plea
  
  State v. Lambert
  Docket: 2008AP000890 04-16-09
  

  BRIDGE, J. Carl Lambert appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against him and the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Following a plea agreement, Lambert pled guilty to two offenses. He argues that as to one of them, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, he did not enter his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and should therefore be allowed to withdraw it. We conclude that the record establishes that although the circuit court articulated the elements of the offense during the plea colloquy with Lambert, it did not ascertain whether Lambert understood them. We therefore reverse the judgment and order of the circuit court as to this offense and remand the matter for further proceedings.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Colloquy/ Statutes/ Plea Withdrawal/ Deportation/ Preclusion
  
  State v. Medrano
  Docket: 2008AP001464 04-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Rogelio Medrano appeals an order of the circuit court denying his third motion to vacate his conviction and withdraw his plea to one count of possession with the intent to deliver twenty-five to one hundred grams of cocaine. Medrano asserts he is entitled to withdraw his plea because the court failed to properly advise him of the possible immigration consequences of his plea, as required by WIS. STAT. § 971.08(1)(c). The court denied the motion, stating that the law on which Medrano relied was not retroactively applicable to his case and, in any event, his motion was precluded. We agree with the circuit court and affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Withdrawal/ New Attorney/ Plea Colloquy/ Knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntarily
  
  State v. Harris
  Docket: 2008AP000621 04-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Lorenzo Harris pled guilty to a charge of armed robbery as a party to a crime. The circuit court imposed a fifteen-year prison sentence, consisting of a minimum of ten years in initial confinement and a maximum of five years on extended supervision. Harris appeals, contending that the circuit court erred when it denied his request for new counsel prior to his entering his plea. Because we conclude that Harris's subsequent guilty plea waived any such error by the circuit court, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
• Criminal Law/ Probable Cause To Arrest/ Miranda
  
  State v. Contreras
  Docket: 2008AP001239 04-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Jose E. Contreras appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered upon a jury's verdict, for one count of delivery of cocaine, less than three grams, as party to a crime, as a second or subsequent offense. Contreras asserts that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.
• Criminal Law/ Reasonable Suspicion/ Traffic Stops/ Search & Seizure/ Evidence/ Constitutional Law
  
  State v. Curtain
  Docket: 2008AP002087 04-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Tomius L. Curtain appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of possession with intent to deliver cocaine as a second or subsequent offense. He asserts that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him and that a subsequent search of his vehicle was therefore illegal. We conclude the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and that a protective search of the vehicle was permissible. We therefore affirm.
• Damages/ Evidence/ Corporations/ Fraud/ Corporate Shield Defense/ Verdict Questions
  
  Thompson v. Schulte
  Docket: 2007AP001328 04-16-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Stephen Schulte and Linda Schulte appeal judgments awarding compensatory and punitive damages to Shirley Thompson, Gregory Lin, and Elga Lin. They also appeal an order denying their motions after verdict which were entered after the judgments. We affirm the judgments and order.
• Damages/ Juries/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Evidence/ Employment Law/ Estoppel/ Juror Bias
  
  Kroon v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd.
  Docket: 2008AP002038 04-14-09
  

  BRENNAN, J. Wisconsin Central, Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Company ("Railroad") appeal from a judgment entered after a jury found in favor of James N. Kroon on his complaint asserting two claims against the Railroad for personal injuries he sustained while working for the Railroad. The Railroad raises seven claims for us to consider on appeal: (1) the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in ruling that the jury's damage award was not excessive; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding on causation; (3) the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim that a juror was biased against the Railroad; (4) the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Railroad's claim that the jurors reached a verdict based in part on extraneous prejudicial information; (5) the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on whether the jurors improperly utilized the quotient method in calculating the damage award; (6) there was insufficient evidence to establish that Canadian National Railway Company was Kroon's employer; and (7) the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied the Railroad's request to apply the defense of equitable estoppel. The trial court denied each of the Railroad's post-verdict claims in a particularly thorough and well-reasoned analysis. We affirm the trial court and uphold the judgment.
• Economic Loss Doctrine/ Contracts/ Joint & Several Liability/ Negligence/ Statutes/ Evidence/ Settlement Offer/ Damages/ Covenant Not To Sue/ Liability/ Release/ Statutes/ Verdicts/ Judgment Interest/ Costs
  
  Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Engineering
  Docket: 2008AP000484 04-14-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Leavitt Tubing Company, LLC (Leavitt) and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (Lumbermens) appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of Industrial Risk Insurers (IRI) and Quad Graphics, Inc. (Quad). IRI/Quad cross-appeals, contending that the trial court erred by refusing to award it interest and double costs against Lumbermens under the offer-of-settlement provisions found in WIS. STAT. § 807.01 (2007-08).
• Employment Law/ Arbitration/ Statutes/ Reinstatement
  
  Sands v. Menard, Inc.
  Docket: 2008AP001703 04-14-09
  Recommended for Publication
  Sands v. Menard, Inc.
  Docket: 2008AP001703E 04-16-09
  

  BRUNNER, J. Menard, Inc., appeals a judgment and order denying its motion to vacate a portion of an arbitration award requiring it to reinstate former employee Dawn Sands. Menard contends the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law by requiring Menard to reinstate Sands. We affirm the judgment and order.
• Employment Law/ Worker's Compensation/ Insurance/ Administrative Law Judge/ Statutes/ Burden Of Proof/ Subrogation
  
  Walton v. LIRC
  Docket: 2007AP002853E 04-15-09
  
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Placement/ Child Support
  
  Rath v. Rath
  Docket: 2007AP002358 04-14-09
  

  KESSLER, J. Maria Okuneva Rath appeals from trial court orders that modified both physical placement of the parties' child and the child support that David Rath had been paying to Maria. On appeal, Maria argues that the trial court erroneously: (1) determined that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred; (2) changed the placement schedule; (3) failed to schedule a hearing on Maria's motion for reconsideration; (4) entered the child support order after Maria filed a request for substitution; and (5) entered the child support order without making requisite findings. We reject her arguments and affirm the orders, with one exception: we conclude that the trial court did not make the necessary findings and therefore erroneously exercised its discretion when it entered the December 12, 2007 child support order. Thus, with respect to that order, we reverse and remand this matter back to the Honorable Maxine A. White with directions that she make necessary findings and explain the reasoning behind her exercise of discretion. As to all other issues, we affirm.
• Inmates/ Civil Rights/ Jurisdiction/ Timeliness/ Constitutional Law/ Procedure
  
  Green v. Berge
  Docket: 2007AP000431 04-16-09
  

  PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by prisoner Norman Green from a judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We reverse the dismissal as to two claims.
• Insurance/ Duty To Defend/ Summary Judgment/ Contracts
  
  Ring v. Coyle
  Docket: 2008AP000312 04-16-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Thomas C. Coyle appeals a circuit court order granting summary judgment to American Family Mutual Insurance Company. Coyle argues that the circuit court erred because it applied the four corners rule to determine that American Family did not have a duty to defend him in this action. Because we conclude that the four corners rule is the law in Wisconsin for determining the duty to defend, we also conclude that American Family was entitled to summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
• Landlord-Tenant/ Contracts/ Eviction/ Damages
  
  Winterfield Properties, LLC v. Woods
  Docket: 2008AP000359 04-16-09
  

  VERGERONT, J. This appeal arises out of a dispute between Winterfield Properties LLC and its former tenant, Dale Woods. Woods appeals the circuit court's judgment of eviction and award of $2,101.86 plus costs against Woods and the dismissal of her action for damages against Winterfield Properties. We issued an opinion on February 26, 2009, affirming the circuit court. In response to Woods' motion for reconsideration, we withdrew that opinion on March 19, 2009, pending a decision on the motion.
• Landlord-Tenant/ Lease/ Receivership/ Bankruptcy/ Statutes/ Secured Creditor
  
  Admanco, Inc. v. 700 Stanton Drive, LLC
  Docket: 2007AP002791 04-15-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  NEUBAUER, J. 700 Stanton Drive, LLC, appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Admanco, Inc., by its Receiver, Michael S. Polsky. Admanco is in a WIS. STAT. ch. 128 (2007-08) receivership proceeding. Admanco had a fifteen-year lease for property rented from Stanton. After Admanco entered into receivership, Stanton, claiming that it is entitled to recover damages for the entire fifteen-year lease period, withdrew funds under two irrevocable standby letters of credit issued by M&I Bank, which were held by Stanton as a security deposit. In related reimbursement agreements with M&I, Admanco pledged its assets to secure the letters of credit. WISCONSIN STAT. § 128.17(2) limits a landlord's recovery in a ch. 128 proceeding. Stanton contends that the statute does not limit its claim because (1) Admanco rejected the lease by filing for receivership, and in any event, it is entitled to lease damages outside the receivership proceeding because (2) Stanton is a secured creditor, and (3) the proceeds from the letters of credit are not property of the estate. We disagree and conclude that the § 128.17(2) limit applies to this landlord whose tenant entered into a ch. 128 proceeding. As such, we affirm the circuit court's judgment requiring Stanton to reimburse Admanco's estate for the funds withdrawn which depleted the assets of the receivership estate over and above the landlord's allowable claim under § 128.17(2).
• OWI/ Evidence/ Statutes/ Constitutional Law/ Right To Confront
  
  State v. Meixelsperger
  Docket: 2008AP002125 04-16-09
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. A jury found William Meixelsperger guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a third offense. Meixelsperger appeals the resulting judgment of conviction. He argues that the circuit court erred by admitting blood test evidence showing that he had a blood alcohol content above the legal limit. The person who drew his blood did not testify at trial. Meixelsperger challenges the admissibility of the blood test evidence under WIS. STAT. § 343.305(5)(b) and on constitutional grounds. For the reasons that follow, I affirm the circuit court's judgment.
• OWI/ Jurisdiction/ Probable Cause To Arrest/ Evidence
  
  State v. Liesener
  Docket: 2008AP002977 04-15-09
  

  BROWN, C.J. Craig S. Liesener appeals from a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The circuit court issued the judgment, upon a guilty plea, after denying his motion to suppress all of the evidence. Liesener alleges that the arresting officer did not have the authority to arrest him because the arresting officer was outside his jurisdiction, and the other officer "simply notified" the arresting officer of the stop, as opposed to requesting assistance. Liesener also asserts that the arresting officer did not have sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to arrest. We reject both arguments. We conclude that the other officer did impliedly request the arresting officer's assistance, and the arresting officer had sufficient evidence to establish probable cause based on knowledge obtained from the eyewitness, the other officer and his own personal observation of Liesener. Therefore we affirm.
• OWI/ Plea Withdrawal/ New Factors/ Sentencing Modification
  
  State v. Peneau-Wycklendt
  Docket: 2008AP001878 04-15-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Jennifer Peneau-Wycklendt appeals from a judgment entered upon her guilty plea convicting her of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), sixth offense, and from an order denying her motion for postconviction relief. She has not shown sufficient grounds to withdraw her plea or that a new factor warrants sentence modification. We affirm.
• Property/ Zoning/ Jurisdiction/ Constitutional Law-Due Process/ Ordinances/ Variances/ Administrative Law/ Statutes
  
  Driehaus v. Walworth County
  Docket: 2008AP000947E 04-15-09
  
• Sales Taxation/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation/ Nonprofit Corporation/ Department of Revenue (DOR)
  
  Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra v. DOR
  Docket: 2008AP001684 04-16-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  VERGERONT, J. The Tax Appeals Commission determined that the concert performances of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Inc., were properly characterized as entertainment events under WIS. STAT. § 77.52(2)(a)2. (2007-08), which imposes a sales tax on "the sale of admissions to entertainment events." The issue on this appeal and cross-appeal is whether the commission's decision is correct. We conclude the commission's decision is entitled to due weight deference, and, applying that standard, we conclude the commission properly interpreted and applied the statute. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's decision ordering a remand to the commission and direct the circuit court to enter an order affirming the commission's decision.
• Summary Judgment/ Burden Of Proof/ Evidence/ Attorney Fees
  
  Ricciardi, Stern & Patrickus v. Sparbel
  Docket: 2007AP002211 04-16-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Jason and Trisha Sparbel appeal from a summary judgment for unpaid legal fees and expenses in favor of Ricciardi, Stern & Patrickus, S.C. ("Ricciardi"). The Sparbels argue the circuit court erred by: (1) shifting the burden of proof; (2) determining expert testimony was necessary to challenge the reasonableness of the fees; (3) failing to consider an affidavit authenticating documents; and (4) failing to recognize material issues of fact precluding summary judgment. We disagree and affirm.