COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

May 17, 2012

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.�	2011AP2105-CR	Cir. Ct. No.� 2010CF1906
STATE OF WISCONSIN�			IN COURT OF APPEALS
			DISTRICT IV


State of Wisconsin, �� Plaintiff-Respondent, �� v. Matthew O. Roach, �� Defendant-Appellant.

�� APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Dane County:� William E. hanrahan, Judge.� Affirmed.�

�1�� VERGERONT, J.[1] Matthew Roach appeals from a judgment of conviction for battery, disorderly conduct, resisting or obstructing an officer, and bail jumping, in violation of Wis. Stat. �� 940.19(1), 947.01, 946.41(1), and 946.49(1)(a), respectively, as well as the order denying Roach�s postconviction motion.� He contends the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion under Wis. Stat. � 973.049 when it ordered that Roach have no contact with his mother or stepfather for one year as a condition of his probation.

�2�� We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it ordered that Roach have no contact with his mother or stepfather for one year as a condition of his probation.� Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

�3�� In August 2010 police responded to an incident outside the home Roach shared with his mother and stepfather. �Roach�s mother later informed responding officers of the following facts.� Roach and his girlfriend were brought by friends to Roach�s family home, where Roach and his girlfriend engaged in an argument in the front yard.� When Roach�s stepfather stepped outside to observe what was happening, Roach �immediately became upset that [his stepfather] came out and [Roach] began to push him several times, which caused [his stepfather] to fall into the bushes.�� Roach�s mother went inside to call 911.� However, before the 911 operator answered, Roach�s mother heard screaming outside, so she set the phone down and went out to the yard.� There she observed Roach place his stepfather in a headlock in the front yard. �Roach�s mother attempted to pull Roach off his stepfather, but Roach pushed his mother away.

�4�� Roach�s mother heard the phone ring, so she went inside to answer the phone call, which was a call from the 911 operator.� She told the 911 operator what was happening.� Roach�s mother looked out her front door and saw Roach slap his girlfriend across the face.� Roach came inside, took the phone from his mother, pushed her, and slammed the phone down.� Police later arrived at the scene and attempted to arrest Roach, who resisted arrest.�

�5�� Roach�s friends who witnessed his behavior before he was taken to his family home informed police that Roach and his girlfriend began their argument earlier in the evening at a friend�s home.� During the incident, Roach grabbed his girlfriend by the throat with both of his hands and picked her up off the ground.� He had also slapped her in the face multiple times.�

�6�� Roach entered guilty pleas to four misdemeanor charges arising out of this incident.� The circuit court withheld sentence and placed Roach on probation for three years.� The circuit court ordered as one of the conditions of Roach�s probation that he not have any contact, direct or indirect, with his mother or stepfather for the first year of his probation.�

�7�� Roach moved the court to modify his conditions of probation to remove the no-contact order, and the court denied the motion.� Roach also filed a postconviction �motion to quash contact restriction order,� which the court denied.

DISCUSSION

�8�� On appeal Roach renews his argument that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion under Wis. Stat. � 973.049 when it ordered that Roach have no contact with his mother or stepfather during the first year of his probation. �The State responds that the imposition of this condition was within the circuit court�s discretion.[2]�

�9�� Wisconsin Stat. � 973.09(1)(a) provides that circuit courts may withhold sentence and place a person convicted of a crime on probation. Generally, �[t]he court may impose any conditions which appear to be reasonable and appropriate.�� Id.� However, Wis. Stat. � 973.049(2) relates specifically to restrictions on contact imposed as a condition of probation.� This statute provides:

When a court imposes a sentence on an individual or places an individual on probation for the conviction of a crime, the court may prohibit the individual from contacting victims of, or co-actors in, a crime considered at sentencing during any part of the individual�s sentence or period of probation if the court determines that the prohibition would be in the interest of public protection.� For purposes of the prohibition, the court may determine who are the victims of any crime considered at sentencing.

Id. (emphasis added).�

�10�� In State v. Campbell, 2011 WI App 18, �23, 331 Wis. 2d 91, 794 N.W.2d 276, we held that the language in � 973.049(2) grants the court discretion to prohibit a defendant from contacting victims of a crime considered at sentencing, as well as to decide who are the victims of a crime considered at sentencing. �We will uphold a circuit court�s discretionary decisions as long as the circuit court �examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.�� LeMere v. LeMere, 2003 WI 67, �13, 262 Wis. 2d 426, 663 N.W.2d 789 (citation omitted).

�11�� Roach contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion because the court imposed the no-contact provision in the interest of rehabilitating Roach, not in the interest of public protection as required by � 973.049(2).� However, we conclude the record does not support Roach�s assertion.

�12�� At the plea and sentencing hearing, the circuit court indicated that Roach�s behavior for which he was being sentenced was dangerous.� For example, the circuit court stated to the defendant:� �You choked [your girlfriend].� You picked her up off the ground by the neck�. �People die from that.�� The court also found that Roach refused to accept responsibility for his actions, which led him to continue to violate the law.� The court explained that the no-contact provision was being imposed to prevent Roach�s behavior from continuing by requiring him to take responsibility for his actions and to not rely on his mother and stepfather for support.� Specifically, the court stated: �[I]t is my intent by the no-contact provision to put a stick in the spokes of that machine that has been rolling forward without any relief.�� We conclude it was not an erroneous exercise of the court to conclude that putting a stop to repeated dangerous behavior by encouraging Roach to take responsibility for his actions is in the interest of public protection, and that issuing the no-contact provision was a reasonable way to meet this goal.

�13�� Roach also argues that the court improperly considered Roach�s past crimes and juvenile offenses, �despite the statutory mandate that only the crimes �considered at sentencing� constitute grounds for the no contact order.�� We disagree with this reading of Wis. Stat. � 973.049(2).� This statute provides that a �court may prohibit the individual from contacting victims of � a crime considered at sentencing.� �Wis. Stat. � 973.049(2).� However, it does not state that only the crimes considered at sentencing can be taken into account when the court determines whether to impose a contact restriction.� See State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, �46, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (when the meaning of statutory language is plain, we apply that plain meaning). �Roach does not develop an argument explaining why the statutory language has the meaning he advocates.

�14�� To the extent Roach argues that, because his mother and stepfather consented to contact with Roach in the past, the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that Roach�s mother and stepfather were �victims,� we also reject this contention. �Wisconsin Stat. � 973.049(2) provides that �the court may determine who are the victims of any crime considered at sentencing.�� Here, the factual basis of the crimes for which Roach was sentenced involved Roach pushing his mother and stepfather and placing his stepfather in a headlock.� It was within the circuit court�s discretion to conclude that his mother and stepfather were victims.

�15�� In light of the foregoing, we conclude the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it imposed a one-year no-contact provision as a condition of Roach�s probation.

CONCLUSION

�16�� Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the order denying Roach�s motion for postconviction relief.

�� By the Court.�Judgment and 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)(f) and (3) (2009-10).� All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.

[2] The State also contends that this issue is moot because the condition of probation Roach challenges expired on January 19, 2012.� An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.� Warren v. Link Farms, Inc., 123 Wis. 2d 485, 487, 368 N.W.2d 688 (Ct. App. 1985).� Subject to certain exceptions, we generally do not address moot issues.� Id.� However, we will consider a moot issue when the issue is likely to be repeated but evades appellate review.� State ex. rel Unnamed Person No. 1 v. State, 2003 WI 30, �19, 260 Wis. 2d 653, 660 N.W.2d 260.� The imposition of a one-year no-contact provision as a condition of probation is such an issue.� Accordingly, we address Roach�s contention.