PER CURIAM. Attorney Thomas J. Molinaro has appealed that portion of a referee's report concluding that the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) met its burden of proof as to 8 of the 13 counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint. The issues raised in Attorney Molinaro's appeal are whether there is a sufficient basis to support the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the eight counts of misconduct; assuming that this court concludes that Attorney Molinaro did engage in misconduct, what is the appropriate sanction; and should Attorney Molinaro be required to pay the full costs of the proceeding? The OLR has filed a cross-appeal raising two issues: whether there is a sufficient basis to support the referee's findings and conclusion that the OLR failed to meet its burden of proof as to count 10 of the complaint, and whether Attorney Molinaro should be required to make restitution to his client, R.M., in the amount of $9,630.

PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation executed by Attorney James T. Winch and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12. In the stipulation, Attorney Winch admits that he committed 11 counts of professional misconduct. The parties jointly request that the court impose a three-year suspension of Attorney Winch's license to practice law in this state as discipline for his misconduct and require Attorney Winch to pay restitution to an estate that Attorney Winch was retained to handle.

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. We review an unpublished per curiam decision of the court of appeals, which affirmed the circuit court's judgment convicting defendant Jennifer L. Ward (Ward) of first-degree reckless homicide. The dispositive issue in this case is whether incriminating statements Ward made during the police investigation subsequent to the death of her seven-week old nephew were not voluntary and therefore, should have been suppressed. We conclude that once in police custody, Ward knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her Fifth Amendment rights to silence and to counsel and that under the totality of the circumstances, her statements were voluntarily made because neither her personal characteristics nor police conduct resulted in coerced statements. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

The law in Wisconsin is clear that a person knowingly possesses child pornography when he or she views a digital image of child pornography and manipulates or otherwise acts on the digital image knowing that the Web browser will automatically save the image on his or her computer. However, no court, and, importantly, no Wisconsin court, has decided whether the defendant may be convicted of knowing possession when the evidence supporting those charges neither shows that the defendant manipulated or acted on the digital image nor that the defendant knew the images would automatically be saved. The issue here concerns this situation.

CURLEY, P.J. Nickola Stojsavljevic appeals the order of the circuit court that affirmed the judgment of the municipal court finding him guilty of violating MILWAUKEE, WIS., ORDINANCE § 101-27-1-b, regulating night parking. See WIS. STAT. § 800.14 (2007-08) (appeal from decision by municipal court). Because the transcript of the trial held in the municipal court supports the municipal court's finding of guilt, this court affirms.

PER CURIAM. Michael Ferguson appeals his judgment of conviction. Ferguson was found guilty upon a jury verdict of stalking, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and obstructing an officer. Ferguson argues on appeal there was insufficient evidence to convict him of attempted first-degree intentional homicide. We reject Ferguson's arguments and affirm the conviction.

CURLEY, P.J. Terion Lamar Robinson appeals the order denying his motion to suppress and his conviction, entered following a guilty plea, for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance--tetrahydrocannabinols (marijuana), less than 200 grams, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 961.41(1m)(h)1. (2005-06). Robinson argues that the entry into the apartment where he was arrested and the seizure of the controlled substances found there were the result of an illegal warrantless search because what the police believed was an open felony warrant was actually a commitment order that was not signed by a judge. Alternatively, Robinson argues that if we conclude that the commitment order is a warrant for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the search was illegal because the police were obligated to obtain a search warrant before entering as Robinson was a guest in the apartment. We assume, without deciding, that the commitment order in this case would be insufficient to permit a lawful entry into the apartment to effect Robinson's arrest and the resultant search. However, extrapolating from the holding in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), adopted in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, that evidence found in a search is subject to a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule when the police officer relied in good faith upon the search warrant's validity, we conclude that here, the officer's good faith belief that there existed an open felony warrant for Robinson's arrest is subject to the exception. In addition, because the trial court's finding that Robinson either lived or was staying at the apartment was not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. Ricky Schmaling appeals a judgment of conviction for possessing THC as a second or subsequent offense and two counts of felony bail jumping. He contends the court should have suppressed evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his cabin because a confidential informant who provided information to law enforcement was not reliable. We affirm the judgment.

PER CURIAM. Todd E. Peterson appeals a judgment convicting him of first-degree sexual assault of a child as a persistent repeater and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He contends he merits a new trial because trial counsel was ineffective and because the trial court improperly admitted "other-acts" evidence of his prior assaults on young girls. We disagree, and affirm the judgment and order.

ANDERSON, P.J. Pablo G. Quiroz appeals from his judgment of conviction for two counts each of second degree sexual assault of a child contrary to WIS. STAT. § 948.02(2) (2001-02) and child sexual exploitation contrary to § 948.05(1)(a). Quiroz argues that, because he offered an independent reason for absconding, it was error for the trial court to allow evidence of his absconding and to give the jury a flight instruction, leaving Quiroz to explain his flight motivation to the jury, in turn causing him unfair prejudice. We disagree and affirm the trial court.

HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. The State appeals an order vacating James D. Miller's judgment of conviction for first-degree reckless injury while armed with a dangerous weapon, in violation of WIS. STAT. § 940.23(1) (2005-06), and aggravated battery while armed with a dangerous weapon, in violation of WIS. STAT. § 940.19(5). Because we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to convict Miller of first-degree reckless injury, we affirm the trial court's order vacating his conviction on this charge and remand for the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal. However, we reverse the trial court's decision vacating Miller's conviction for aggravated battery. Accordingly, we modify the trial court's order, and, as modified, affirm in part and reverse in part and remand with directions.

PER CURIAM. Jamie Jardine appeals an order denying his postconviction motion in which he requested a new trial or resentencing based on newly discovered evidence. A jury convicted Jardine of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and four counts of first-degree sexual assault of a masseuse in a massage parlor. The alleged newly discovered evidence consists of DNA tests on bedding and towels showing other men's DNA and no DNA on Jardine's gun, and a medical record indicating the victim showed no sign of "sexual trauma." Because the new evidence would not have created a reasonable doubt as to Jardine's guilt, we affirm the order.

ANDERSON, P.J. Jeffrey Akright pled guilty to one count of third-degree sexual assault and one count of causing a child older than thirteen to view sexually explicit conduct. He appeals from the trial court judgments of conviction and orders denying postconviction relief. Akright makes two arguments to support his appeal: First, he argues that the sentencing court erred in independently obtaining and considering his juvenile record; and second, if we decline to address his argument due to waiver, he alternatively argues that his trial attorney's failure to object to the alleged trial court errors denied him the effective assistance of counsel. We hold that even if the trial court erred, Akright waived this argument by failing to object at his sentencing. Further, though the State concedes that Akright's trial attorney's performance was deficient, Akright has failed to show that his attorney's deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Thus, Akright was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgments and orders.

ANDERSON, P.J. This is an appeal by the State of Wisconsin from a Racine county circuit court judgment on whether the circuit court abused its discretion by requiring that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources request a mounted deer head from John J. Longo within a limited time period, or waive its legal right to the head and issue Longo a permit for its possession. Based on Longo's failure to file a respondent's brief, this court summarily reverses the decision of the circuit court.

PER CURIAM. David Cutler appeals a judgment of divorce, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion with regard to maintenance and property division. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Barry Callen appeals from the family support component of a judgment of divorce. Specifically, he challenges the trial court's failure to take into account the tax consequences flowing from his self-employment, even after he had provided the relevant information in a motion for reconsideration of a bench ruling. We agree that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it refused to take the information provided in the reconsideration motion into account, and therefore reverse and remand with directions that the court enter a new order consistent with this opinion.

VERGERONT, J. This appeal of an order terminating Luis R.'s parental rights to Vaughn R. presents three issues involving the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (2006): (1) Does § 1912(f) of the ICWA, which requires a showing of likely serious emotional or physical damage to the child from continued custody by the parent, apply where the child is placed outside the parental home at the time the termination of parental rights (TPR) proceeding is initiated? (2) Does the record support a determination that the social worker testifying for the County is a "qualified expert witness" within the meaning of § 1912(f)? (3) Does § 1912(d), which requires efforts to provide remedial and rehabilitative services to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, impose a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a TPR proceeding?

BRIDGE, J. Mark Lester appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, first offense, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(a). Lester contends the officer making the investigatory stop did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle, and also contends that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him. We disagree and affirm.

ANDERSON, P.J. Jill Y. Treleven contends that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop and did not develop probable cause to support her arrest for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). We agree with the trial court that under the totality of the circumstances, there was reasonable suspicion to support an investigative traffic stop, and the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Treleven. Therefore, we affirm her conviction for fourth offense OWI.

PER CURIAM. Stephen Willett and Mary Willett appeal a judgment affirming a Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission decision that upheld a $104 tax assessment. The Willetts purport to present ten issues on appeal. We address three primary issues, two concerning the weight of the evidence and one regarding a claimed procedural irregularity. We affirm the Commission's decision and admonish Attorney Willett.