PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter. On August 1, 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint and motion pursuant to SCR 22.22 requesting that this court suspend the license of Attorney Michelle L. Tully for three years as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court.

PER CURIAM. Larnal Linden appeals from orders denying his postconviction and reconsideration motions. We conclude that the issues Linden raises (apart from that raised on reconsideration) were decided adversely to him on direct appeal and cannot be relitigated. Insofar as the new issue Linden raised on reconsideration was not decided on direct appeal, the "new law" that Linden seeks to apply does not retroactively apply to cases on collateral review. Therefore, we affirm.

KESSLER, J. The State of Wisconsin appeals from an order suppressing photographic evidence obtained from a cell phone that was seized from Jermichael James Carroll. We reverse because we conclude that the evidence was ultimately seized pursuant to a valid search warrant.

FINE, J. Pablo Ruiz-Velez appeals, pursuant to our leave, the non-final order of the circuit court denying his motion to have the official court reporter transcribe audiovisual recordings of statements made by the child whom Ruiz-Velez was convicted of sexually assaulting that were received into evidence pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 908.08(1) ("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 Record does not reveal that Ruiz-Velez asked that the recordings be taken down by the court reporter as they were played for the jury, and the judge presiding over the trial did not order it. The postconviction court entered the order from which this appeal is taken. The State concedes that the audiovisual recordings should be transcribed by the official court reporter and, although we are not bound by the State's concession, see State v. Gomaz, 141 Wis. 2d 302, 307, 414 N.W.2d 626, 629 (1987), we agree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the recordings be transcribed by the official court reporter.

CURLEY, P.J. Donte L. Moss appeals from the judgment, entered after a jury trial, convicting him of first-degree reckless injury, as a party to a crime, while using a dangerous weapon, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 940.23(1)(a), 939.05 and 939.63 (2005-06). He also appeals from the order denying his postconviction motion. Moss claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it: (1) refused to grant a mistrial after the victim, Edmond Green, gave surprising testimony that Moss had "torche[d]" and "bust[ed] out the windows" of Green's mother's car; and (2) failed to "set forth on the record a nexus between the factors considered by the court and the sentence imposed." Because the trial court properly exercised its discretion, both when it denied the mistrial motion and when it sentenced Moss, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. David Claudio appeals from an order summarily denying his postconviction motion for plea withdrawal, and from a related order denying his motion for leave to file a supplemental motion. We conclude that Claudio's motion for plea withdrawal, even as supplemented, does not allege a sufficient reason to overcome the procedural bar of State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185-86, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) and State v. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, ¶¶25-27, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 N.W.2d 574. Therefore, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. Jeremy S. Daubon appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against him. He argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a pat-down frisk. Because we conclude that the police acted reasonably when they conducted a pat-down search of Daubon, we also conclude that the circuit court properly denied the motion to suppress. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

BRIDGE, J. Christopher Riechman appeals a judgment of divorce from Susan Baum-Riechman. He challenges the division of a portion of his worker's compensation settlement, the valuation of those funds, the division of real property owned by the parties, and the court's rulings regarding child support and maintenance. We conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion with respect to each of these issues and therefore affirm.

PER CURIAM. April Griffin appeals from an order that awarded Matthew Sebuliba sole legal custody and primary physical placement of the parties' son, Jesse. She also challenges the ruling changing Jesse's name and a contempt ruling that occurred during the custody proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the contempt ruling is now moot and affirm the rest of the circuit court's decisions.

VERGERONT, J. Emery K.M. appeals the orders terminating his parental rights to his children, Noah and Emery, Jr., on the grounds that a stipulation he entered into with respect to one element of the claim against him deprived him of his right to a jury trial and he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive that right. We conclude he did knowingly and voluntarily waive that right. We therefore affirm.

LUNDSTEN, J. This case involves a dispute between Golden Rule Insurance and its insureds, Patrick and Claudette Munro, who sued Golden Rule for denying health insurance claims in bad faith. After a jury found that Golden Rule did not engage in bad faith, the circuit court entered a judgment dismissing the Munros' complaint. The Munros appeal the judgment.

PETERSON, J. Dustin Hinz appeals a judgment declaring Wisconsin American Mutual Insurance Company has no responsibility to defend or indemnify Lincoln Lanes, Inc. The circuit court held Lincoln Lanes' policy with Wisconsin American excludes liability arising from causing or contributing to the intoxication of an individual, or from serving alcohol to a person under the legal drinking age. Hinz argues the policy is ambiguous. We disagree and affirm.

PER CURIAM. The Estate of Gary Schroeder and Gary Schroeder's widow, Nancy Schroeder, (the Schroeders) appeal a judgment entered upon a jury verdict dismissing their medical malpractice claims against Dr. Peter Boardman and related health care entities and insurers. The Schroeders argue there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict. They also argue the jury's failure to award damages is a perverse verdict, entitling them to a new trial. We disagree and affirm.

KESSLER, J. Raymond McMillon appeals from a judgment, entered after a bench trial, in favor of Michael Pries, who was injured at the Wisconsin State Fair Park when some metal horse stalls fell on him. McMillon, an employee of the Wisconsin State Fair Park, argues he is immune from liability under the common law doctrine of immunity for state employees ("discretionary act immunity"). He contends that the trial court erred when it concluded that the ministerial duty exception to discretionary act immunity applied. Pries cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erroneously concluded that the known danger exception to discretionary act immunity did not apply. We affirm the judgment in favor of Pries because we conclude that the known danger exception to discretionary act immunity applies. We do not consider whether the ministerial duty exception also applies. See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703, 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (Cases should be decided on the narrowest possible grounds.); State v. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227, ¶27 n.10, 248 Wis. 2d 409, 636 N.W.2d 488 ("[W]e may affirm a trial court's ruling on a question of law on a different ground than that relied on by the trial court.").

SNYDER, J. Harry Schmitz, Jr., appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the Town of Fond du Lac that awarded the Town forfeitures in the amount of $37,650 from Schmitz. Schmitz contends that the circuit court improperly resolved the case by summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist. He further contends that the forfeiture violates the Settlement Agreement between the parties. We affirm the summary judgment on the Town's building permit and site and grading permit claims, and we affirm the forfeiture award as calculated by the circuit court; however, we reverse the summary judgment on the Town's nuisance claim. We remand for further proceedings.

BRIDGE, J. Frank Silha & Sons, Inc. appeals a judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Janesville. Silha challenges the court's determination that no issue of material fact existed as to whether trucks owned by Silha violated JANESVILLE GENERAL ORDINANCE § 12.48.050 (April 2006) when they traveled east on Tripp Road in the city limits of Janesville until reaching Afton Road, which is also within the limits of Janesville. We affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of Janesville.

NEUBAUER, J. The Estate of Thomas R. Lamers, and Thomas's parents, James Lamers and Janice Lamers (the Lamers), appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of American Hardware Mutual Insurance Company. The Lamers contend that the trial court erred in its determination that they are not entitled to bring a wrongful death action under WIS. STAT. § 895.04 (2005-06) to recover lost inheritance from their unmarried adult son. The Lamers are not able to establish that there is a reasonable probability that they personally would have inherited from their son had he lived a natural life span. Thus, the Lamers seek to recover lost inheritance on behalf of "a class of heirs." Because the statutory language of § 895.04 does not provide for the recovery of lost inheritance by a party on behalf of a class of heirs, we conclude that the Lamers are not entitled to bring a wrongful death action for loss of inheritance. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment.