No decisions were released.

• Chapter 980 Commitments/ Evidence/ Experts/ Waiver
  
  State v. Budd
  Docket: 2008AP001620 10-15-09
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. This is a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 (2007-08)[1] case. Owen R. Budd challenges a judgment and commitment order entered on a jury verdict finding him to be a sexually violent person and an order denying his post-commitment motion. This is the second time Budd has been found to be a sexually violent person by a jury. We reversed the first judgment in an opinion issued on October 4, 2007. A second jury trial was held approximately eighteen months later on the State's ch. 980 petition. Budd argues that, in the second trial, the trial court erred by barring his experts from testifying about sexual offender treatment he received at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Facility during the eighteen month interlude between trials and that, as a result, he is entitled to a new trial. In the alternative, he requests that we exercise our discretionary authority under Wis. Stat. § 752.35 to reverse and order a new trial in the interests of justice because the real controversy was not fully tried.
• Contracts/ Property/ Attorney Fees/ Offset/ Damages/ Right To Jury Trial/ Foreclosure/ False Advertising/ Recession
  
  Seidling v. Stepan
  Docket: 2008AP001009 10-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Dori Stepan appeals a judgment granting her request to rescind a land contract with Bernard Seidling and returning the money Stepan paid on the contract minus a setoff for her possession and use of the property. She argues: (1) she was entitled to a jury trial; (2) she is entitled to attorney fees under Wis. Stat. § 100.18[1] (false advertising); and (3) the court erred when it offset her damages by the value of her use of the property.[2] We conclude the trial court properly denied Stepan a jury trial and attorney fees, but we reverse the setoff and remand the matter for the trial court to award Stepan the return of all of the money she paid on the contract.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Deramus
  Docket: 2009AP000569 10-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Darryl E. Deramus appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered upon a jury's verdict, for one count of felon in possession of a firearm and one count of obstructing an officer. He also appeals an order denying a motion for postconviction relief.[1] Deramus asserts that it was error for the court to admit evidence of additional guns recovered when Deramus was not alleged to have possessed those weapons. He also asserts that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to object to this evidence on relevancy grounds, and when counsel failed to object to testimony about a "shooter's nest." We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in admitting the evidence of additional weapons and that counsel was not ineffective. We therefore affirm the judgment and order.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Selective Prosecution
  
  State v. Jordan
  Docket: 2009AP000416 10-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Darrick Jordan appeals a judgment of conviction for manufacturing THC, second or subsequent offense, party to a crime, and for maintaining a drug trafficking place, second or subsequent offense, and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Jordan argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel for multiple reasons, he was denied timely access to evidence, he was selectively prosecuted, and the circuit court erroneously denied his suppression motion. We reject Jordan's arguments and affirm. We also sanction Jordan's appellate counsel.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Evidence Ruling
  
  State v. Jones
  Docket: 2008AP001854 10-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Lee Edward Jones appeals from a judgment of conviction for multiple counts of first- and second-degree sexual assault of a child. The issue is whether displaying eleven poster-sized photographs ("posters") of the alleged victims, each containing the name, a description of the charges, and the dates and whereabouts of each alleged offense was unfairly prejudicial, thereby denying Jones a fair trial. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the display of these posters throughout the trial as pedagogical devices to assist the jury in "keep[ing] track" of the multiple charges and victims, and to avoid juror confusion. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Fine/ Sentencing/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Timm
  Docket: 2008AP003179 10-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Robert Allen Timm appeals from a judgment of conviction and postconviction order.[1] The only issue on appeal concerns the propriety of the sentencing court's imposition of a $300 fine. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Foreign National/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Pro Se/ Procedure/ Appeal Barred
  
  State v. Delacruz
  Docket: 2008AP002071 10-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Franklin P. Delacruz appeals pro se from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Delacruz's motion and appeal follow this court's summary affirmance of his convictions in response to the no-merit report his counsel filed. See State v. Delacruz, No. 2005AP2151-CRNM, unpublished slip op. (WI App Feb. 15, 2006).[1] We conclude that Delacruz's claim is procedurally barred by State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), and State v. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 N.W.2d 574. In any event, he has not established that trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Waiver Of Issue/ Attorney – Client Privilege
  
  State v. Reed
  Docket: 2008AP000751 10-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Anthony S. Reed appeals from an amended judgment of conviction for possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, and from a postconviction order summarily denying his motion for a Machner hearing.[1] The issues are whether Reed's trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Reed to proceed to a jury trial in jailhouse clothing, and whether counsel violated the attorney-client privilege by disclosing the substance of his related discussions with Reed. We conclude that Reed personally waived his right both to proceed to trial in street clothes (non-jailhouse clothing), removing this issue from the realm of ineffective assistance, and for failing to raise the privilege issue initially in his postconviction motion. We therefore affirm.
• Criminal Law/ New Trial/ New Evidence/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
  
  State v. Marquardt
  Docket: 2009AP000076 10-14-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Bill Marquardt appeals orders denying his Wis. Stat. § 974.06[1] postconviction motion, a motion for reconsideration and various other requests for access to materials. He argues he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. We reject these arguments and affirm the orders.
• Employment Law/ LIRC/ Worker's Compensation/ Evidence/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation/ Applicant Procedure
  
  Greenfield Pontiac-Buick v. L.I.R.C.
  Docket: 2009AP000239 10-14-09
  

  KESSLER, J. Greenfield Pontiac-Buick, Inc., and its insurer, Federated Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, "Greenfield"), appeal from an order affirming a Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) decision requiring Greenfield to pay two-thirds of injured employee Chris H. Werdin's worker's compensation benefits. Greenfield argues that Werdin's claim is barred by Wis. Stat. § 102.12 (2007-08)[1] because he did not file a claim for benefits or provide notice to his employer within two years of the date of injury.[2] In the alternative, Greenfield argues that even if the deadline for filing a claim or providing notice to his employer was two years "from the date the employee … knew or ought to have known the nature of the disability and its relation to the employment," see id.,Werdin's claim is barred under the undisputed facts of this case. We decline to address Greenfield's first argument because it was not raised before LIRC. With respect to the second argument, we affirm LIRC's decision that Werdin's claim is not barred by § 102.12. Therefore, the circuit court's order is affirmed.
• Family Law/ Parenity
  
  Varma v. Zhuchkova
  Docket: 2007AP002905 10-15-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Natalia Zhuchkova appeals a paternity judgment, contending that the circuit court's child support award is an erroneous exercise of discretion. We conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in determining support, and therefore affirm.
• Family Law/ TPR/ Constitutional Law-Due Process/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  Marathon County v. Lynn W.
  Docket: 2009AP001472 10-14-09
  Marathon County v. Lynn W.
  Docket: 2009AP001473 10-14-09
  Marathon County v. Lynn W.
  Docket: 2009AP001474 10-14-09
  

  BRUNNER, J.[1] Lynn W. appeals from judgments terminating her parental rights to her three minor children under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4). She asserts that the conditions of return in the underlying no-contact order violated her substantive due process right to parent her children because her cognitive disability prevented her from satisfying the conditions. We conclude that § 48.415(4) as applied to Lynn is narrowly tailored to achieve the State's compelling interest in protecting children from unfit parents and affirm the orders.
• Motion To File No Merit Report
  
  State v. Brown
  Docket: 2008XX000702 10-14-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  PER CURIAM. The circuit court appointed appellate counsel for Carl D. Brown. Appellate counsel moved this court for leave to file a no-merit report. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We directed the State and the Office of the State Public Defender to file memoranda addressing counsel's motion.[1] We now hold that appellate counsel appointed by the circuit court may use the no-merit procedure set out in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32 (2007-08).[2]
• Towns & Cities/ Employment Law/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation/ Wages/ Mootness/ Writ Of Madamus/ Preclusion
  
  Sliwinski v. City of Milwaukee
  Docket: 2008AP002141E 10-14-09
  
• Universities/ Discrimination/ Evidence
  
  Amir v. Marquette University
  Docket: 2008AP001170 10-15-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Ali Amir appeals an order dismissing his complaint against Marquette University. He alleged that the University discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin, in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000d, when it dismissed him from the School of Dentistry. On his previous appeal this court reversed a summary judgment in the University's favor, and remanded for a trial on his claim. Amir v. Marquette Univ., 2006 WI App 252, ¶1, 297 Wis. 2d 326, 727 N.W.2d 63. We identified the issues for trial as to whether Amir was similarly situated to a Caucasian student named Daniel Meyers and, if so, whether the stated reason for Amir's dismissal was pretextual. Id., ¶20. At the subsequent bench trial, the circuit court dismissed the matter at the close of Amir's case, finding that he had not proved that he and Meyers were similarly situated. Amir contends on appeal that the court erroneously relied on nonexistent testimony to find that Amir and Meyers were not similarly situated, and that he in fact met his burden of proving that they were similarly situated, but differentially treated. We disagree and therefore affirm.