No decisions were released.

• Bankruptcy/ Federal Statutes/ Failure To State A Claim/ Preclusion
  
  Foley and Lardner v. Stitgen
  Docket: 2008AP002284 08-13-09
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. Thomas and Deborah Krueger appeal the circuit court’s order determining that their debt to Douglas Stitgen was not discharged by their bankruptcy court proceedings. The Kruegers argue that Stitgen’s complaint against them in the present action failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Stitgen (1) failed to sufficiently allege that the debt was not discharged and (2) failed to allege the elements for nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19), covering debts for federal or state securities laws violations. The Kruegers also argue that Stitgen should be barred by claim or issue preclusion from asserting that the debt is not dischargeable. We reject these arguments, and affirm the circuit court’s order.
• Contracts/ Summary Judgment/ Insurance/ Conversion/ Parole Evidence Rule/ Property
  
  Hoem v. Town of Franklin
  Docket: 2008AP001680 08-13-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Wilma Hoem appeals from a summary judgment decision that dismissed her claims against the Town of Franklin and its insurer for breach of contract and conversion, as well as third-party claims the Town had brought against an engineering firm, a contractor, and another insurer. We reverse the trial court’s decision for the reasons discussed below and remand the matter for trial.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Evidence Ruling
  
  State v. Reynosa
  Docket: 2008AP001434 08-11-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Isaiah Trevor Reynosa pled guilty to first-degree intentional homicide, party to a crime. See Wis. Stat. §§ 940.01(1)(a) and 939.05 (2003-04).[1] The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it denied Reynosa's pretrial suppression motion.[2] We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Sentencing/ Arrest
  
  State v. Loggins
  Docket: 2009AP000127 08-11-09
  

  KESSLER, J. Gregory Loggins, Sr., appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pled guilty to one count of armed robbery by threat of force, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.32(2) (2007-08).[1] He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion.[2] Loggins argues that the physical evidence seized at his home and his statement to police following his arrest should have been suppressed because the police illegally entered Loggins' home. He also claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the suppression motion and did not erroneously exercise its sentencing discretion. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
  
  State v. Richard
  Docket: 2008AP001853 08-11-09
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Matthew Richard appeals from the judgment, entered following a jury verdict, convicting him of (1) first-degree intentional homicide while armed, (2) attempted first-degree intentional homicide while armed, and (3) possession of a firearm by a felon, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.01(1)(a), 939.63, 939.32, and 941.29(2)(a) (2005-06).[1] He also appeals from the order denying his postconviction motion seeking, among other things, a Machner hearing.[2] Richard argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present exculpatory evidence, which would impeach the credibility of the State's witnesses.[3] Specifically, he points to what he describes as counsel's failure to interview Johanna Velazquez, James Howard, and Jimmy Cruz before the trial, failure to enter phone records into evidence at trial, failure to thoroughly investigate the actions of a police officer, failure to impeach Howard's testimony or cross-examine Howard on his motives to lie at trial, and failure to object to Detective Chavez's testimony. Because Richard's trial counsel was not ineffective, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Mistrial/ Constitutional Law-Due Process/ Evidence
  
  State v. Hurst
  Docket: 2008AP002513 08-11-09
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Timothy M. Hurst appeals from a corrected judgment of conviction for burglary with a person present, false imprisonment while armed, substantial battery while armed, and a judgment of conviction for armed robbery, all as a party to the crime, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 943.10(2)(e), 940.30, 940.19(2), 939.63, 943.32(1)(a), (2), and 939.05 (2005-06).[1] Hurst argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and motion to dismiss because an ID card found at the scene of the crime, which was later lost by police, was evidence containing exculpatory value that was apparent to police and was of such a nature that he would not have been able to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. Hurst claims that the loss of the ID card violated his due process rights. Because we conclude that the lost ID card was merely potentially exculpatory evidence and that there was no bad faith on the part of the police, we affirm the trial court's denial of Hurst's motions.
• Criminal Law/ New Trial/ Evidence Hearing/ Plea Withdrawal/ Evidence
  
  State v. Booth
  Docket: 2008AP000896 08-11-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Robert E. Booth appeals pro se from a postconviction order denying his motion for a new trial. The issues are: (1) whether Booth is entitled to a supplemental evidentiary hearing to establish an agreement between the State and its principal witness, Booth's brother Levi, which would have dissuaded Booth from pleading guilty to a reduced charge; and (2) whether Levi recanted his testimony incriminating Booth, constituting newly discovered evidence.[1] We conclude that: (1) Booth is not entitled to a supplemental evidentiary hearing to again attempt to prove an agreement that he was previously unable to prove and that is necessary to his plea withdrawal claim; and (2) Levi's purported recantation does not constitute newly discovered evidence because: (a) the trial court found Levi was not credible; and (b) in the context of Booth's stated reasons for pleading guilty to a reduced charge, the difference between Levi's original and postconviction testimony was inconsequential. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Plea Withdrawal/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
  
  State v. Holz
  Docket: 2008AP001297 08-11-09
  

  BRUNNER, J. Michael Holz appeals a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He argues the circuit court should have granted his motion for plea withdrawal because his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm the judgment and order.
• Criminal Law/ Prosecutorial Misconduct/ Evidence/ Miranda/ Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
  
  State v. Pegues
  Docket: 2007AP001292 08-11-09
  

  PER CURIAM. A jury found Norris Edward Pegues guilty of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and possession of a firearm by a felon. See Wis. Stat. §§ 940.01(1)(a), 939.32 and 941.29(2) (2005-06).[1] The court imposed a thirty-year sentence for the attempted homicide and a consecutive ten-year sentence for the possession of a firearm. In this pro se appeal from the judgment of conviction, Pegues raises twenty-six enumerated issues.[2] We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Searches/ Arrest/ Evidence/ Constitutional Law
  
  State v. Sloan
  Docket: 2008AP001046 08-11-09
  

  PER CURIAM. William A. Sloan appeals from a judgment of conviction for possessing cocaine with intent to deliver as a subsequent drug offense. The issue is whether the deputy sheriff's warrantless search of Sloan's bathroom was constitutionally reasonable. We conclude that it was because the search was incident to Sloan's arrest. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Sentencing Credit/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  State v. Lamar
  Docket: 2008AP002206 08-11-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Charles Lamar appeals the judgment convicting him of aggravated battery and misdemeanor bail jumping, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.19(5) and 946.49(1)(a) (2005‑ 06), and the postconviction order denying his request for additional sentence credit.[1] This appeal follows Lamar's successful withdrawal of his guilty plea to the original charge of aggravated battery as a habitual offender. At the same time, Lamar also pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor bail jumping as a habitual offender. As the result of a plea negotiation, a second count of misdemeanor bail jumping as a habitual offender was dismissed. The misdemeanor bail jumping as a habitual offender charge to which he pled guilty was never challenged, and the sentence remained in effect. Lamar then entered into a second plea negotiation. He agreed to plead guilty to aggravated battery and a revived charge of misdemeanor bail jumping, and the State dismissed the habitual criminality penalty enhancers. The trial court assigned to hear the second sentencing proceeding ordered his sentences on the amended aggravated battery charge and the revived charge of misdemeanor bail jumping to be served concurrently to one another, but consecutively to the sentence given in the original misdemeanor bail jumping as a habitual offender charge.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Sentencing Modification/ New Factors/ Procedure/ Appeal Barred
  
  State v. Hard
  Docket: 2008AP001858 08-11-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Sherwood L. Hard appeals from two postconviction orders denying his motions for sentence modification and for postconviction relief pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2007-08).[1] The issues are whether any of the factors Hard raised in his sentence modification motion are "new" as preliminarily required, and whether Hard asserted a "sufficient reason" for failing to previously raise, or for renewing the thirty-two issues he raised in his postconviction motion. We conclude that none of the factors Hard raised in his modification motion were "new," and that his reason for belatedly raising or renewing these thirty-two issues was not sufficient to overcome the procedural bar of State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185‑ 86, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). Therefore, we affirm both orders.
• Criminal Law/ Traffic Stops/ Motor Vehicle Law/ Reasonable Suspicion/ Ordinances/ Evidence/ Evidence Ruling/ Statutes
  
  State v. Bailey
  Docket: 2008AP003153 08-11-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  BRENNAN, J. Dennis E. Bailey appeals from a judgment entered after he pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to deliver, as a second or subsequent offense and one count of felony bail jumping, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 961.41(1m)(cm)4., 961.48 and 946.49(1)(b) (2007-08).[1] Bailey challenges the trial court's order denying his motion seeking suppression. Bailey argues that the City of Milwaukee police officer had no authority to stop his vehicle for unlawfully tinted windows. He argues that the subsequent search of his vehicle was not justified by reasonable suspicion. Because we conclude that City of Milwaukee police officers are authorized to enforce city ordinances promulgated under the traffic code and that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the search of Bailey's vehicle, we affirm.
• Estates/ Marital Property/ Jury Instructions/ Donative Intent/ Evidence
  
  Estate of Lanzendorf v. Shaw
  Docket: 2008AP002482 08-13-09
  

  VERGERONT, J. This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of a dispute between the Estate of Earl Lanzendorf and Earl’s son, on the one hand, and Earl’s wife, on the other hand. The Estate and Earl’s son, Timothy, sued Earl’s wife, Karen Shaw, alleging breach of the marital property agreement between Earl and Shaw. The jury determined that Shaw had not breached the agreement, while deciding against her on her counterclaim for unconscionability.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Child Support/ Stipulations/ Public Policy
  
  Lowrey v. Magnuson
  Docket: 2008AP001012 08-13-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Christine Lowrey appeals an order that denied her motion to increase the amount of child support arrearage payments being made by her ex-husband, Paul Magnuson, due to an alleged substantial change in circumstances, and instead granted Magnuson’s countermotion to enforce the payment schedule set forth in a 1996 court-approved stipulation. We affirm for the reasons discussed below.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Marital Estate/ Property Division/ Maintenance/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  Townsend v. Townsend
  Docket: 2008AP001786 08-12-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Gary L. Townsend appeals from the property division and maintenance portions of a judgment of divorce. Specifically, he contends that only the portion of his pension that accrued during the ten-year marriage should have been subject to equal division and that the trial court erred in awarding limited maintenance to his former wife, Donna L. Townsend. We conclude that neither determination constitutes an erroneous exercise of the court's discretion. We affirm.
• Inmates/ Parole/ Statutes/ Sentencing
  
  Patrick v. Graham
  Docket: 2009AP000366 08-11-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Richard L. Patrick, pro se, appeals an order of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Wisconsin Parole Commission to deny Patrick release on his mandatory parole date. Because the record supports the Commission's decision, we affirm.
• OWI/ Traffic Stops/ Reasonable Suspicion
  
  State v. Cox
  Docket: 2008AP003120 08-13-09
  

  LUNDSTEN, J.[1] Damian Cox appeals a judgment convicting him of a first offense for drunk driving. The dispositive issue is whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Cox for impaired driving. I conclude that he did, and affirm the judgment.
• Personal Injury/ Insurance/ Subrogation/ Statutes/ Public Policy/ Constitutional Law-Equal Protection/ Damages/ Standing/ Indemnification/ Medical Malpractice
  
  Konkel v. Acuity
  Docket: 2008AP002156 08-11-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company, and its insured, Nancy Lynch (collectively referred to as Acuity unless otherwise specified) appeal from a summary judgment order dismissing their action against Midwest Neurosurgical Associates, S.C., and Arvind Ahuja, M.D. (collectively referred to as Dr. Ahuja unless otherwise specified). Acuity argues that it should be reimbursed for the expenses related to what it contends was an unnecessary surgery performed by Dr. Ahuja on Lisa Konkel.
• Small Claims/ Legal Malpractice/ Fees/ Waiver Of Fees/ Public Policy
  
  Tessen v. Bender
  Docket: 2008AP003213 08-13-09
  

  BRIDGE, J.[1] Robert Tessen appeals an order of the circuit court dismissing his small claims legal malpractice action against Richard Bender upon the court’s finding that the action should not have been filed because Tessen failed to either pay the filing and service fees or receive a waiver of the fees. We affirm.
• Towns & Cities/ Property/ Zoning/ Jurisdiction
  
  Ezmoney Wisconsin, Inc. v. City of Wauwatosa
  Docket: 2008AP002154 08-11-09
  

  KESSLER, J. EZMONEY Wisconsin, Inc., appeals from a circuit court order affirming a decision of the City of Wauwatosa Board of Zoning Appeals (hereafter, "Board") denying EZMONEY's applications for building and occupancy permits. We affirm.