No decisions were released.

• Criminal Law/ Evidence Ruling/ Harmless Error
  
  State v. Ali
  Docket: 2007AP002799 09-03-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Timothy Ali appeals a judgment, entered after a trial to the court, convicting him of criminal damage to property and possession of burglarious tools, both counts as party to a crime. Ali also appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Ali argues the trial court committed reversible error by admitting testimony about Ali's possession of evidence that had been suppressed in an earlier case. We reject Ali's arguments and affirm the judgment and order.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Withdrawal/ Sentencing/ Plea Colloquy
  
  State v. Olivar
  Docket: 2008AP002505 09-01-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Joshua Lee Olivar pled guilty to second-degree reckless homicide, party to a crime, see Wis. Stat. §§ 940.06(1) and 939.05 (2005-06).[1] The court imposed a bifurcated sentence of twenty years, comprised of fifteen years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision. Olivar filed a postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea in which he argued that the plea colloquy was defective because the court did not adequately inform Olivar that it was not bound by the sentencing recommendations of the parties, see State v. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, ¶20, 274 Wis. 2d 379, 683 N.W.2d 14 (a circuit court is required to personally advise the defendant it is not bound by a plea agreement), and that his trial counsel was ineffective.[2] After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied Olivar’s motion. Olivar appeals. Because the plea colloquy satisfied statutory and case law requirements, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Prosecutorial Vindictiveness/ Right To Counsel
  
  State v. Stokes
  Docket: 2009AP000637 09-01-09
  State v. Stokes
  Docket: 2009AP000638 09-01-09
  

  CURLEY, P.J.[1] Tracy A. Stokes appeals the judgment entered following his guilty plea to a charge of disorderly conduct, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (2005-06), which was amended from a charge of knowingly violating a domestic abuse injunction.[2] Stokes argues that the postconviction court erred in determining that there was no prosecutorial vindictiveness for filing new charges when in a previous proceeding Stokes’ request for a new attorney was granted after he appeared in court for the first time since his initial appearance some eleven months earlier, discovered that a jury trial was scheduled for which he had had no previous notice, and had had limited contact with his attorney during the pendency of his case. The trial court found the request for a new attorney “legitimate” and adjourned the matter. The prosecutor then advised the court that it would be issuing additional charges. Approximately two weeks later, the prosecutor who had appeared in court in Stokes’ case filed a criminal complaint charging Stokes with six counts of knowingly violating a domestic abuse injunction and three counts of misdemeanor bail jumping, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 813.12(8) and 946.49(1)(a). Consequently, Stokes also appeals the judgment entered following his guilty pleas to two additional amended counts of disorderly conduct and four amended disorderly conduct forfeiture charges, contrary to § 947.01 (2005-06) and Milwaukee, Wis., Ordinance § 106‑ 1 (erroneously referenced as § 63.01). The new case was subsequently consolidated with the older charge. Because no testimony was taken to permit the postconviction court to evaluate the reasons why the prosecutor chose to charge the additional charges after Stokes exercised his constitutional right to an effective attorney, this matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing Credit
  
  State v. Antone
  Docket: 2009AP000860 09-01-09
  

  HOOVER, P.J.[1] Ira Antone appeals a judgment of conviction granting three hundred days’ sentence credit and an order denying his motion for sentence credit requesting an additional thirty-four days’ credit. Antone argues he is entitled to the additional credit because his reconfinement sentence in another case did not commence until he was received at the correctional institution. We agree and reverse and remand with directions to grant the requested sentence credit.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing Restitution/ Constitutional Law-Due Process/ Statutes/ Pleas
  
  State v. Thomas
  Docket: 2009AP000426 09-01-09
  

  FINE, J. Jaegen J. Thomas pled guilty, as party to a crime, to misdemeanor theft of movable property with a value of less than $2,500. See Wis. Stat. §§ 943.20(1)(a), (3)(a) & 939.05. He contends that the judgment making him jointly and severally liable for restitution with his co-actor violates his right to due process under both the federal and Wisconsin constitutions. This contention was rejected by the circuit court in an order denying Thomas’s motion for postconviction relief. Thomas appeals.[1]
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Resentencing
  
  State v. Lambert
  Docket: 2008AP001686 09-01-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Rodney Lambert pled guilty to several crimes, including armed robbery, party to a crime. See Wis. Stat. §§ 943.32(1)(b) and (2), 939.05 (2005-06).[1] The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously denied Lambert’s motion for resentencing in which Lambert contended that he was entitled to resentencing because the sentencing court failed to consider the applicable sentencing guidelines. See Wis. Stat. § 973.017(2)(a) (2005-06).[2] The trial court ruled that, even though it did not complete a sentencing guideline form, it considered all of the factors set forth in the guidelines when imposing sentence and, therefore, Lambert was not entitled to resentencing. We affirm.
• Department of Corrections (DOC)/ Sentencing/ Reconfinement/ Waiver/ Agreement/ Procedure
  
  State v. Washington
  Docket: 2008AP002359 09-02-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  SNYDER, J. Michael Lee Washington appeals from a reconfinement order and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Washington asserts that he waived his final revocation hearing in reliance upon an agreement with the Department of Corrections (DOC) regarding a recommended term of reincarceration. He contends that the prosecutor breached the agreement by not following the DOC recommendation at the reconfinement hearing.[1] Washington further argues the circuit court failed to properly weigh relevant sentencing factors; specifically, he contends the court did not give enough weight to the DOC recommendation. We reject both of Washington's arguments and affirm.
• Employment Law/ LIRC/ Unemployment Benefits
  
  Reinl v. Affinity Health System
  Docket: 2009AP000263 09-01-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Bernice Reinl appeals[1] an order affirming a Labor and Industry Review Commission decision regarding her claim for unemployment compensation. Reinl argues LIRC erred by concluding she was discharged for misconduct connected with her employment. We disagree and affirm the order.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Child Support/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Marital Expenses
  
  Flynn v. Flynn
  Docket: 2008AP002692 09-02-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Benjamin Flynn appeals a judgment of divorce from Tammy Flynn. He contends the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered child support in an amount higher than in the percentage guidelines and ordered him to reimburse Tammy for half of a COBRA payment to which he did not consent and for half of a car payment and a credit card payment which he claims were solely her obligations. We disagree with Benjamin and affirm the judgment.
• Inmates/ Department of Corrections (DOC)/ Disciplinary/ Procedure
  
  Avery v. Thurmer
  Docket: 2008AP002522 09-03-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Andre Avery appeals from a circuit court order that affirmed a prison disciplinary decision on certiorari review. For the reasons discussed below, we also affirm.
• Insurance/ Declaratory Judgment/ Underinsured/ Contracts/ Statute
  
  Tomson v. American Family Mutual
  Docket: 2008AP002744 09-01-09
  

  FINE, J. Michael and Joann Tomson appeal the circuit court’s grant of motions for declaratory and summary judgment filed by their uninsured-motorist carrier, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, dismissing the Tomsons’ claims against American Family.[2] The circuit court determined that there was no coverage under the policy. We reverse.
• Juvenile Law/ Criminal Law/ Delinquent/ Evidence
  
  State v. Marlon M.
  Docket: 2009AP000122 09-02-09
  

  ANDERSON, J.[1] This is an appeal from a dispositional order from the Racine county circuit court finding Marlon M. delinquent of taking and driving a vehicle without the owner's consent as a party to the crime and disorderly conduct. This court affirms the decision of the circuit court.
• Torts/ Damages/ Negligence/ Public Policy/ Liability/ Emotional Distress/ Hostile Work Environment
  
  Maypark v. Securitas Security Services
  Docket: 2008AP001528 09-01-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  HOOVER, P.J. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. appeals judgments awarding money damages for severe emotional distress caused by its negligent training and supervision of its employee, Troy Schmidt. Securitas argues it was not negligent because it was not foreseeable that allowing its employees to access the internet would create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Securitas also contends public policy considerations preclude liability even if it was negligent. Securitas further argues it cannot be held liable for damages caused by a hostile work environment existing at another employer. Finally, Securitas asserts it is entitled to a new trial due to circuit court bias.
• Town & Cities/ Nuisance/ Summary Judgment/ Liability/ Notice/ Negligence
  
  Gideo v. City of Cumberland
  Docket: 2008AP002831 09-01-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Michael and Jonelle Gideo appeal a summary judgment dismissing their nuisance claim against the City of Cumberland. The basis for their claim was a sewer backup into their basement. The Gideos argue the circuit court erred when it concluded the City was not liable because it had no notice of the blockage that allegedly caused the backup. We affirm.