COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

 

January 29, 2014

 

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

 

 

 

NOTICE

 

 

This opinion is subject to further editing.� If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.�

 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.� See Wis. Stat. � 808.10 and Rule 809.62.�

 

 

 

 

Appeal No.�

2013AP1398

Cir. Ct. No.� 1999PA270

STATE OF WISCONSIN�

IN COURT OF APPEALS

 

DISTRICT II

 

 

 

 

In re the finding of contempt in

In re the paternity of Aubre M. Petersen:

 

State of Wisconsin and Kimberly A. Uttenbroek,

 

��������� Petitioners-Respondents,

 

���� v.

 

Mark R. Petersen,

 

��������� Respondent-Appellant.

 

 

 

 

 

����������� APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County:� john a. jorgensen, Judge.� Affirmed.�

�1������� REILLY, J.[1]�� Mark R. Petersen appeals an order denying his motion for a new evidentiary hearing on whether to lift the stay on a 120-day jail term ordered for his contempt of court.� We affirm as the court properly denied Petersen�s request for an unnecessary hearing.

BACKGROUND

�2������� Petersen was found in contempt of court for failing to follow a court order that he pay child support and seek employment.� The circuit court stayed imposition of a 120-day jail term for the contempt, provided that Petersen comply with a number of conditions.� Six months later, the court held a hearing on whether to lift the stay.� The court lifted the stay after finding that Petersen had failed to meet the conditions to purge the contempt.� After serving his 120 days in jail for contempt, Petersen moved the circuit court for a new evidentiary hearing based on alleged errors in the hearing that addressed whether to lift the stay.� Petersen asserted that he was entitled to a new hearing as at the prior hearing he was prevented from giving a legal justification for his actions and the court relied on improperly admitted evidence.� Petersen did not assert that he had met the conditions necessary to purge the contempt finding and prevent the stay from being lifted.

�3������� At a hearing on his motion, Petersen conceded that as he already had served his jail time, �the relief really only could be � that he could have his day in court.�� The court denied Petersen�s motion, finding that no errors had been committed at the previous hearing and that his motion was moot as there was no remedy available to him.� Petersen appeals.�

DISCUSSION

�4������� Significant to Petersen�s appeal is that it does not challenge the finding of contempt nor does it challenge the 120-day jail term ordered for that contempt.� Petersen�s appeal is restricted to whether the court erred in denying his motion for another evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the stay of the 120-day jail term should be lifted.� Petersen argues the court should have granted his request for a hearing regardless of the fact that he brought his motion after he served his time and could receive no relief from a new hearing.� We disagree.� A court may �conserve scarce judicial resources by eliminating unnecessary evidentiary hearings.�� State v. Velez, 224 Wis. 2d 1, 12, 589 N.W.2d 9 (1999).� A new evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether to lift the 120-day jail term for contempt was unnecessary as Petersen already had served his jail time.� The court properly denied Petersen�s motion and �conserve[d] scarce judicial resources.�� Id.

����������� By the Court.�Order affirmed.

����������� This opinion will not be published.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1]  This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. � 752.31(2)(h) (2011-12).� All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise noted.