No decisions were released.

• Criminal Law/ Appeal Barred/ Statutes/ Procedure
  
  State v. Morris
  Docket: 2009AP000572 04-06-10
  

  PER CURIAM. Pharoah Vernon Morris appeals from an order denying clarification and reconsideration of a postconviction order summarily denying a motion for relief from his 1999 judgment of conviction for armed robbery. The issue is whether a void judgment may be properly challenged at any time, thereby avoiding the "sufficient reason" requisite of State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 181-82, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994). We conclude that Morris's motion for relief from what he characterizes as a "void and defective" judgment of conviction is procedurally barred by Escalona for Morris's failure to allege why he did not challenge the validity of his judgment on direct appeal. Therefore, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Constitutional Law-Due Process/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Sanctions
  
  State v. Huggett
  Docket: 2009AP001684 04-06-10
  Recommended for Publication
  

  HOOVER, P.J. The State appeals an order dismissing, with prejudice, a single charge of second-degree intentional homicide. The circuit court dismissed the case due to the State's failure to preserve apparently exculpatory evidence consisting of threatening voicemail messages left on two cell phones. Kyle Huggett claimed he acted in perfect self-defense and defense of others. The lost voicemail messages were from the victim, who broke into Huggett's home. The State argues: (1) we incorrectly decided the leading evidence preservation case, State v. Greenwold, 189 Wis. 2d 59, 525 N.W.2d 294 (Ct. App. 1994) (Greenwold II); (2) Huggett is not entitled to any remedy because the voicemail messages were not in the State's exclusive control and comparable evidence was available; and (3) the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by dismissing the case rather than ordering a less severe remedy. We reject the State's arguments and affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Discovery/ Ineffective Assistance of Counsel/ Hearsay/ Right to Confrontation/ New Trial
  
  State v. Jackson
  Docket: 2009AP000851 04-06-10
  

  CURLEY, P.J. Victor T. Jackson appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of repeated first-degree sexual assault of the same child, one count for each of two victims, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 948.025(1)(a) (2005-06). He also appeals the order denying his request for postconviction relief. Jackson argues that his trial was "tainted" by several errors: (1) the trial court's admission of what he contends was inadmissible hearsay; (2) the State's violation of his statutory discovery rights when it relied on a pretrial telephone recording during trial despite the fact that the recording was not provided to the defense prior to trial; and (3) his trial counsel's deficient performance in a number of respects. Jackson contends that the effect of these errors warrants a new trial. Because we conclude that all of the challenged statements fall within recognized hearsay exceptions and that Jackson's trial counsel was not ineffective, we affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Evidence/ Video Tapes/ Statutes/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  State v. Elam
  Docket: 2009AP000920 04-06-10
  

  PER CURIAM. The State appeals an order suppressing an audiovisual statement of a child victim in this sexual assault prosecution. See WIS. STAT. § 908.08(1) (2007-08) ("In any criminal trial the court may admit into evidence the audiovisual recording of an oral statement of a child who is available to testify, as provided in this section."). The issue is whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in suppressing the statement. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Forfeiture of Property/ Statutes/ Return of Property/ Judicial Authority-Discretion
  
  Morton v. City of Milwaukee
  Docket: 2009AP001198 04-06-10
  Morton v. City of Milwaukee
  Docket: 2009AP001199 04-06-10
  

  FINE, J. James Thomas Morton, Jr., pro se, appeals orders denying his petition for the return of $1,872 cash seized when he was arrested on drug charges. Morton claims that because the City did not file a forfeiture action, the circuit court must order the return of his money. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance of Counsel/ Appeal Barred
  
  State v. Ellis
  Docket: 2009AP001875 04-06-10
  

  PER CURIAM. Jimmie Lee Ellis, pro se, appeals from an order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, and from an order denying his motion for reconsideration. The circuit
  
  
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance of Counsel/ Appeal Barred/ Statutes
  
  State v. Munson
  Docket: 2009AP001114 04-06-10
  

  PER CURIAM. Tyrone D. Munson, pro se, appeals from an order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion, which alleged his postconviction attorney was ineffective for failing to raise certain errors by trial counsel. See State ex rel. Rothering v. McCaughtry, 205 Wis. 2d 675, 681, 556 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Ct. App. 1996). The circuit court concluded that Munson's claims were procedurally barred. We agree and affirm the order.
• Criminal Law/ Ineffective Assistance of Counsel/ Plea Colloquy
  
  State v. Boose
  Docket: 2009AP001450 04-06-10
  

  FINE, J. Derriest Lamar Boose appeals pro se from an order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 motion. Boose claims the circuit court erred when it summarily denied his claim that his lawyer gave him ineffective representation during his guilty plea, and that his appellate lawyer was ineffective for not raising this issue in his direct appeal. We affirm.
• Criminal Law/ Knowingly Possess/ Evidence/ Computers/ Jury Instructions/ Motions
  
  State v. Mercer
  Docket: 2008AP001763E 04-05-10
  
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Withdrawal / Plea Colloquy/ Constitutional Law/ Knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntarily
  
  State v. Mosley
  Docket: 2008AP002758 04-07-10
  State v. Mosley
  Docket: 2009AP000386 04-07-10
  

  PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Jeffery L. Mosley appeals from a judgment convicting him of delivering cocaine as party to the crime and from a postconviction order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to that offense. We agree with the circuit court that no manifest injustice compelled plea withdrawal because Mosley understood party to the crime liability even though the circuit court did not address such liability during the plea colloquy.
• Criminal Law/ Pleas/ Plea Withdrawal/ Plea Agreement Breach/ Ineffective Assistance of Counsel/ Knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntarily/ Resenting
  
  State v. Popke
  Docket: 2009AP001690 04-08-10
  

  PER CURIAM. Anthony Popke appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree reckless homicide, WIS. STAT. § 940.02(1) (2007-08), and the order denying his motion to withdraw his plea. Popke argues he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because the circuit court did not establish a factual basis for the plea, he did not understand the element of "utter disregard for human life," the State breached the plea agreement at sentencing, and he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel did not properly explain the elements of the crime to him and did not object to the State's breach of the plea agreement. We conclude that there was a sufficient factual basis to establish that Popke acted with utter disregard for human life, and that the record shows that the circuit court properly explained the elements of the crime to him and determined that he understood them before accepting his plea. The circuit court properly denied Popke's motion to withdraw his plea on this basis.
• Criminal Law/ Warrants/ Probable Cause/ Timeliness/ Sufficient Particularity/ Evidence Ruling/ Harmless Error
  
  State v. Brooks
  Docket: 2009AP000310 04-08-10
  

  PER CURIAM. Shawn Odell Brooks appeals from a judgment of conviction entered against him for attempted first-degree sexual assault with a dangerous weapon, first-degree reckless homicide, and armed robbery with use of force. Brooks argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his motions to suppress evidence because the search warrants used to obtain the evidence were based on stale and false information, and lacked sufficient particularity to constitute probable cause. We conclude that the search warrants were constitutionally valid, with one exception. We further conclude that to the extent the circuit court erred when it denied the motion to suppress as to one item, a knife, that error did not affect Brooks' substantial rights, and was harmless. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
• Domestic Abuse/ Injunctions / Evidence/ Statutes
  
  Thomas v. Ardell
  Docket: 2008AP002660 04-06-10
  

  PER CURIAM. Korry L. Ardell appeals from an order dismissing his petition for an injunction against Nicole Marie Thomas, and from an order granting Thomas's petition for a domestic abuse injunction against him. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the domestic abuse injunction entered against Ardell, precluding him from contact with Thomas. Therefore, we affirm.
• Domestic Abuse/ Injunctions/ Evidence/ Statutes
  
  Ardell v. Thomas
  Docket: 2008AP002659 04-06-10
  

  PER CURIAM. Korry L. Ardell appeals from an order dismissing his petition for an injunction against Nicole Marie Thomas, and from an order granting Thomas's petition for a domestic abuse injunction against him. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the domestic abuse injunction entered against Ardell, precluding him from contact with Thomas. Therefore, we affirm.
• Estates/ Wills/ Codicils/ Testamentary Capacity
  
  Hofacker v. Bates
  Docket: 2009AP001170 04-06-10
  

  PER CURIAM. Lyle Hofacker appeals an order invalidating a codicil to his mother, Margaret Hofacker's, will. Lyle argues the circuit court applied the wrong legal standard and contends the court's conclusion that his mother lacked testamentary capacity when she signed the codicil was clearly erroneous. We disagree and affirm.
• Family Law/ Divorce/ Placement/ Judicial Authority-Discretion/ Statutes / Waiver of Issue/ Best Interests of Child
  
  Stumpner v. Cutting
  Docket: 2009AP000094 04-08-10
  Recommended for Publication
  

  HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Claudia Stumpner appeals a sua sponte order modifying physical placement of her daughter, Grace. We conclude that the court lacked the authority under WIS. STAT. § 767.451(3) (2007-08), to sua sponte modify the physical placement order. We therefore reverse.
• Property/ Contracts/ Sanctions/ Frivolous Appeal
  
  Vang v. W.R.C. Sports Complex
  Docket: 2009AP001167 04-08-10
  

  LUNDSTEN, J. WRC Sports Complex entered into an agreement to purchase farmland from Mai Her Lee Vang. The agreement had a contingency, and the parties dispute whether WRC Sports properly gave timely notice declaring the agreement void. When WRC Sports failed to close on the designated day, Mai Her Lee Vang sued for breach of contract and sought forfeiture of WRC Sports' earnest money. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of WRC Sports, ruling that WRC Sports timely invoked the contingency and, therefore, did not breach the contract. The circuit court also granted WRC Sports' motion to impose sanctions under WIS. STAT. § 802.05 (2007-08) and denied Vang's motion to sanction WRC Sports. We affirm the circuit court. In addition, we conclude that this appeal is frivolous under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.25(3). Accordingly, we remand for a determination of costs.
• Property/ Easement/ Statutes
  
  Front Street Properties v. Main Street Ingredients
  Docket: 2009AP000403 04-08-10
  

  PER CURIAM. Front Street Properties, LLC, appeals an order dismissing its suit against Main Street Ingredients, LLC. The dispositive issue is whether Main Street improved an easement in a way that unreasonably burdened Front Street's property. We affirm.
• Summary Judgment/ Service of Process/ Diligence/ Statutes/ Personal Service/ Jurisdiction
  
  Loppnow v. Bielik
  Docket: 2009AP000747 04-07-10
  Recommended for Publication
  

  NEUBAUER, P.J. Kalvin Loppnow appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Steven Bielik. The trial court found that Loppnow failed to exercise reasonable diligence pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 801.11(1)(c) (2007-08) in his attempts to serve process on Bielik in the state of Florida. The trial court ordered Loppnow's action against Bielik dismissed with prejudice. We conclude that the trial court erred in its determination. The undisputed facts of record on summary judgment demonstrate that Loppnow exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to serve Bielik. We reverse the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings.