No decisions were released.

• Counties/ Procedure/ Failure To Preserve Issue/ Ordinances/ Offer Of Proof
  
  County of Walworth v. Lauderdale Lakes Management
  Docket: 2009AP000308 11-04-09
  

  ANDERSON, J.[1] Walworth County challenges the authority of the trial court to sua sponte dismiss the County's prosecution of citations before it had formally rested its presentation of evidence. The County argues that it is entitled to present all of its evidence, and the defendants must move for dismissal before the court can dismiss a case during trial. While the issue presented appears to be a question of first impression in Wisconsin, we do not have to address it because the County has failed to properly preserve the question for appeal. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Exigent Circumstances/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel/ Evidence Ruling
  
  State v. Phillips
  Docket: 2009AP000249 11-03-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Antonio K. Phillips appeals the judgments convicting him, after a jury trial, of delivery of a controlled substance—cocaine (one gram or less), possession of a controlled substance—tetrahydrocannabinols (marijuana), second or subsequent offense, and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance—cocaine (more than one gram but less than five grams), contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 961.41(1)(cm)1g., 961.41(3g)(e), 961.41(1m)(cm)1r., and 961.48 (2005-06).[1] He also appeals the order denying his postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
• Criminal Law/ Procedure/ Appeal Barred/ Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
  
  State v. Price
  Docket: 2008AP002567 11-05-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Robert Price appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion filed under Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (2007-08).[1] We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Repeat Offender/ Sentencing/ Procedure/ Statutes/ Statutory Construction-Interpretation
  
  State v. Gerondale
  Docket: 2009AP001237 11-03-09
  State v. Gerondale
  Docket: 2009AP001238 11-03-09
  

  HOOVER, P.J.[1] Michael Gerondale, pro se, appeals judgments of conviction for battery and two counts of theft, all as a repeater, and an order denying his postconviction motion. Gerondale argues the circuit court erroneously bifurcated the repeater portions of his prison sentence and contends we must therefore vacate those portions of his sentence. We agree in part with Gerondale's argument, reverse the sentencing portion of the judgments and the postconviction order, and remand for resentencing.
• Criminal Law/ Sentencing/ Sex Offender Registry/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Shepski
  Docket: 2009AP000415 11-03-09
  

  PETERSON, J.[1] Kenneth Shepski, Jr., appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of sexual intercourse with a child age sixteen or older and an order denying his motion for sentence modification. Shepski argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it required him to register with the Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry as part of his sentence. We affirm.
• DNR/ Hunting/ License/ Verdict/ Evidence/ Jury Instructions
  
  State v. Dostal
  Docket: 2008AP003081 11-03-09
  

  PETERSON, J.[1] Daryl Dostal appeals a judgment convicting him of hunting deer without a license. Dostal argues the circuit court submitted an ambiguous verdict to the jury and erroneously admitted opinion testimony. We affirm.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Maintenance/ Support/ Property Division/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  Skubal v. Skubal
  Docket: 2008AP002879 11-05-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Thomas Skubal appeals the judgment dissolving his marriage to Julie Skubal. He challenges the circuit court's decisions on maintenance, support and property division as erroneous exercises of discretion. We conclude that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in these matters, and therefore affirm.
• Family Law/ Grandparents Visitation/ Jurisdiction/ Statutes/ Inconvenient Forum
  
  Cynthia H. v. Joshua O.
  Docket: 2008AP002456 11-04-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  ANDERSON, J. This is an appeal from the denial of a permanent guardianship to Cynthia H., the grandmother of Clive R.O. Cynthia contends that the trial court applied "an incomplete and incorrect legal standard under [Wis. Stat.] chapter 54 … and/or Barstad v. Frazier[, 118 Wis. 2d 549, 348 N.W.2d 479 (1984)]."Cynthia further contends that the trial court "misinterpreted current guardianship law in concluding that if the guardianship 'stays in place,' Kristine O. and Joshua O. will never really have a chance to be parents." We cannot agree with Cynthia's contentions. The record demonstrates that the trial court not only applied the correct legal standard and interpretation of the law, it also commendably attempted to handle this case without further dividing the opposing parties, who are family. We affirm.
• Family Law/ Grandparents Visitation/ Jurisdiction/ Statutes/ Inconvenient Forum
  
  Cynthia H. v. Joshua O.
  Docket: 2009AP000143 11-04-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Cynthia H. and Steven H. appeal from the order of the circuit court that dismissed their action against Joshua O. and Kristine O. for grandparent visitation on the grounds that Wisconsin is an inconvenient forum. We conclude that the circuit court did not err when it dismissed the petition, and we affirm.
• Family Law/ TPR/ Adoption/ Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)/ Statutes/ Jurisdiction/ Inconvenient Forum
  
  Cynthia H. v. Joshua O.
  Docket: 2009AP000576 11-04-09
  Cynthia H. v. Joshua O.
  Docket: 2009AP000577 11-04-09
  

  ANDERSON, J. After Cynthia H. and Steven H. (collectively, Cynthia) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Joshua O. and Kristine O., the trial court stayed the matter, concluding that under Wis. Stat. § 822.27 (2007-08),[1] the Wisconsin courts are an inconvenient forum. Cynthia appeals, arguing that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedures outlined in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)[2] and failed to properly examine the factors under § 822.27. We do not agree and affirm the trial court.
• Family Law/ TPR/ Evidence/ Prosecutorial Closing Argument/ Statutes
  
  Wood County D.H.S. v. Gary V.
  Docket: 2009AP001872 11-05-09
  Wood County D.H.S. v. Gary V.
  Docket: 2009AP001873 11-05-09
  

  LUNDSTEN, J.[1] Gary V. appeals the circuit court's orders terminating his parental rights to his children, Kory G.V. and Kourtney M.V., after a jury found three separate grounds for termination. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to support each of the three grounds. Gary V. also argues that he should receive a new trial because the circuit court erroneously admitted testimony that a social worker was fearful of Gary V. and because the prosecutor's closing argument invited the jury to decide the case on an improper basis. I reject Gary V.'s arguments, and affirm the orders.
• Insurance/ Duty To Defend/ Contracts
  
  Ernst/Cherie, L.L.C. v. Chicago Title Insurance
  Docket: 2009AP000550 11-03-09
  Recommended for Publication
  

  PETERSON, J. Ernest/Cherie, LLC, and John Falls appeal a judgment declaring Chicago Title Insurance Company has no duty to defend them against a suit brought by members of a condominium association. Ernest/Cherie and Falls argue the court incorrectly concluded an exclusion to their title insurance policies precludes coverage for the claims. We agree and reverse.
• Juvenile Law/ Delinquent/ Evidence
  
  State v. Summer S.W.
  Docket: 2009AP001495 11-04-09
  

  NEUBAUER, P.J.[1] Summer S.W. appeals from a dispositional order adjudicating her delinquent for possessing a dangerous weapon on school premises. Summer argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge because the facts of record do not support a finding that Summer "knowingly" possessed the folding knife on school grounds. Based on our review of the record, we affirm.
• OWI/ Probable Cause To Arrest/ Evidence
  
  State v. Mills
  Docket: 2009AP001173 11-04-09
  

  SNYDER, J.[1] Christopher J. Mills appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense. He contends that his arrest was not supported by probable cause and therefore the circuit court erred when it did not grant his motion to suppress the evidence derived from his arrest. Specifically, he argues that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to believe that Mills had operated a motor vehicle. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.
• OWI/ Traffic Stops/ Reasonable Suspicion/ Attorney Sanctions
  
  State v. Jardeen
  Docket: 2009AP000414 11-03-09
  

  PETERSON, J.[1] Jeffery Jardeen appeals a judgment of conviction for operating while intoxicated, third offense. Jardeen argues the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. We affirm. We also sanction Jardeen's attorney, Andrew Mishlove, for filing a deficient appendix to his brief and falsely certifying that the appendix conformed to the requirements of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(2)(a).
• Personal Injury/ Evidence/ Briefs
  
  Mehra v. Continental Casualty Company
  Docket: 2008AP003108 11-03-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Nilima Mehra appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after a jury found that Terry L. Nicholson did not install the light fixture that struck Mehra when it fell from her kitchen ceiling. Because Mehra makes no developed or coherent appellate argument, we affirm.
• Personal Injury/ Insurance/ Sanctions/ Mediation/ Statutes/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Costs/ Attorney Fees
  
  Lee v. Geico
  Docket: 2008AP003125E 11-03-09
  
• Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC)/ Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Knowingly, Voluntarily & Intelligently/ Plea Colloquy/ Collateral Attack
  
  State v. Stands
  Docket: 2008AP002965 11-05-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Charles Stands appeals judgments convicting him of operating with a prohibited alcohol content, fifth offense or more, and obstructing an officer. He also appeals an order denying postconviction relief. The issues are whether the court erred by denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his pleas without an evidentiary hearing, and whether the court should have barred consideration of a prior OWI conviction. We conclude that the court's plea colloquy did not comport with the standards for ensuring a knowing and voluntary plea. We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and the order denying postconviction relief, and remand for a hearing at which the State shall have the burden of proving that the defendant entered knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas notwithstanding defects in the plea colloquy. See State v. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, ¶7, 317 Wis. 2d 161, 765 N.W.2d 794.
• Property/ Contracts/ Specific Performance/ Evidence/ "Safe Well Water Contingency"/ New Trial/ Spoilage Of Evidence
  
  Maciolek v. Ross
  Docket: 2007AP002833 11-05-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Patrick Ross appeals a judgment ordering him to specifically perform a contract to sell his home to John and Janet Maciolek. The circuit court entered judgment after a jury found an enforceable contract between Ross and the Macioleks. Ross challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict, and several circuit court rulings during and after the trial. We affirm.
• Property/ Easements/ Statutes/ Riparian Owner
  
  Paulsen v. Wolff
  Docket: 2008AP001621 11-05-09
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. This case concerns a dispute over an easement conveyed to Bryan K. Paulsen and Linda S. Curran-Paulsen by the prior owners of land now owned by Michael L. Wolff. The easement granted the Paulsens a nonexclusive right of way over Wolff's property "for access to a boat dock" on the Platte River. After allowing the Paulsens to access the river through his property for many years, Wolff padlocked the entrance to his property, denying the Paulsens access to the river. The Paulsens brought this action seeking a declaration of their rights under the easement agreement, and Wolff filed a counterclaim for trespass. Following a trial to the court, judgment was entered in the Paulsens' favor declaring their access rights to the river under the easement agreement, granting injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees, and dismissing Wolff's counterclaim. Wolff appeals the judgment and an order denying his motion for reconsideration.
• Sanctions/ Eviction/ Landlord-Tenant/ Damages/ Procedure/ Restitution/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  Perine v. Wild
  Docket: 2008AP001916 11-03-09
  Perine v. Wild
  Docket: 2008AP002331 11-03-09
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Thomas Wild filed two separate appeals in this matter. Initially, he appealed from an order dismissing his counterclaims and third‑ party claims with prejudice as a sanction for his failure to comply with the trial court's orders; in his second appeal, he appeals from a judgment of eviction and a writ of restitution in favor of Ray Perine. Wild's appeals were consolidated for dispositional purposes.[1] Wild argues: (1) the trial court erred when it entered a judgment of eviction and a subsequent money judgment against him; (2) the trial court should have granted his motion for declaratory relief; and (3) the trial court should have stricken the answers filed by Perine and Melissa Stanke and should have granted his motions for default judgments against James Miller, Perine, and Stanke (collectively referred to as Perine unless otherwise specified).
• Summary Judgment/ Misrepresentation/ Economic Loss Doctrine/ Property/ Torts
  
  Van Gordon v. Pinewood Realty, Inc.
  Docket: 2008AP002428 11-03-09
  

  PER CURIAM. Shuyler Van Gorden appeals a summary judgment dismissing various misrepresentation claims against Pinewood Realty, Inc., and Walter Tibbitts. The circuit court concluded Van Gorden suffered purely economic loss when the Department of Natural Resources frustrated his development plan by designating his recently purchased property an island. We affirm.