COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 15, 2013 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.�	2012AP1439-CR	Cir. Ct. No.� 2010CM6353
STATE OF WISCONSIN�			IN COURT OF APPEALS
			DISTRICT I
State of Wisconsin, ����������������������� Plaintiff-Respondent, ����������� v. Kenney Wayne Madlock, ����������������������� Defendant-Appellant.

����������� APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:� MARY M. Kuhnmuench, Judge.� Affirmed.�

�1������� FINE, J.   Kenney Wayne Madlock appeals the judgment entered after a bench trial convicting him of knowingly violating a domestic-abuse injunction. �See Wis. Stat. � 813.12(4) & (8). �The injunction was sought by T.M., and was entered on May 18, 2010, when T.M. and Madlock were still married. �They were divorced about one week before the mid-June, 2011, bench trial.

�2������� As material, the injunction directed Madlock to �avoid the petitioner�s [T.M.�s] residence,� and was to �be effective until 5/18/14.� (Uppercasing, bolding, and underlining omitted.). �He claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court�s finding of guilt. �We affirm.

I.

�3������� T.M. testified at the bench trial that on October 23, 2010, she was with Madlock�s sister, with whom she was friends, sitting in the sister�s car. �The car was parked in front of T.M.�s house. �At the time, she and Madlock were �in the process of getting divorced.� �T.M. told the trial court that she and the sister �were sitting in the car talking and I was going back in my home.� �After approximately ten minutes, she �was stepping out of her car when� she saw Madlock drive around the corner onto 16th Street, which ran in front of her house. �She testified that Madlock was driving a �Ford Econoline truck� that he used although it was registered in her name. �According to T.M., Madlock �actually went past the [sister�s] car and stopped about a car length or so in front of his sister�s car.� ��The truck stopped and he reversed it. �Then he came to block his sister�s parked car.� �She further explained on cross-examination:� �He went past the car, her car. �He stopped. �He then put it in reverse and backed up. �He blocked her car.�

�4������� T.M. told the trial court that approximately �three or four minutes� had elapsed from the time she saw Madlock turn onto her street until he backed up to block his sister�s car. �

Q�������� And during this time is there any eye contact being made?

A�������� Yes.

Q�������� And how far away are you from it?

A�������� About 15 feet.

Q�������� Fifteen feet? �Is he in the car or out of the car?

A�������� He was in the truck.

Q�������� And are you in your [sic] car or out of the car?

A�������� I was out of the car. �

She went into her house and called the police. �Madlock was gone by the time the police arrived some fifteen minutes later. �T.M. told the trial court that the incident made her �[v]ery upset and nervous. �I just couldn�t sleep.�

�5������� Madlock testified at the trial. �Although he admitted driving on the street that ran past T.M.�s house, and also admitted that he saw T.M. standing near his sister�s car when he turned onto the street, he denied stopping, making eye contact with her, or trying to harass her. �He testified that he was merely trying to show a friend where he used to live. �

�6������� Madlock told the trial court that he recognized that the injunction directed that he �avoid� T.M.�s house. �Significantly, during re-direct examination by his trial lawyer, Madlock admitted that he would have violated the harassment injunction if he had stopped, as T.M. testified he did:

Q�������� You just drove straight by?

A�������� Just drove straight by minding my own business.

Q�������� Did you think you were violating that order?

A�������� No.

Q�������� Do you think right now you violated that order?

A�������� No.

Q�������� What if you would have stopped?

A�������� I would have violated.

Q�������� If you would have like stared at her or parked or anything?

A�������� I would have violated it then.

Q�������� But you didn�t do that?

A�������� No. �

Madlock said that T.M.�s testimony�as summarized by his trial lawyer�that he �stopped and parked there for a period of time and looked at her� was �not true.�

�7������� The trial court found that T.M. was a credible witness and that Madlock�s denials were not credible. �Accordingly, as noted, it found Madlock guilty of violating the domestic-abuse injunction.

II.

�8������� As seen from Part I, this is a simple case, although the transcript is larded with much inconsequentia that the briefs discuss in distracting detail. �The key issue is whether the trial court was justified in believing T.M.�s testimony; if it was, then, as Madlock admitted during the trial, he violated the injunction.

�9������� The scope of our review is severely limited by the reality that either a jury or a judge sitting as the trier of fact is better able to assess testimonial evidence than are we, limited as we are to a cold transcript:

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we will reverse a conviction only if �the evidence, viewed most favorably to the state and the conviction, is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.� �Thus, an appellate court must �search the record to support the conclusion reached by the fact finder.� �[This] rule applies to court trials.

State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI App 263, �11, 298 Wis. 2d 155, 162�163, 726 N.W.2d 706, 709 (citations omitted). �Madlock�s appeal recognizes this:

Credible evidence placed Mr. Madlock in a �truck,� on 16^th Street, in front of� [T.M.]�s residence, on October 23, 2010. �As Mr. Madlock drove down 16^th Street, he saw [T.M.], stopped his truck, reversed it (remaining in the vehicle; on a public street), looked at [T.M.] (from an estimated distance of 15 feet), and drove away. �

(Emphasis in original, Record references omitted.).� Yet, immediately after this summary, Madlock�s appellate brief asserts:� �Considering these facts, Mr. Madlock asks this Court to find that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.� �We disagree.

�10����� Given T.M.�s testimony, which the trial court found credible, and Madlock�s awareness that had he stopped in front of T.M.�s house, as T.M. testified he did, he would have violated the injunction, any contention that the evidence does not support the trial court�s conclusion that he knowingly violated the injunction�s direction to �avoid� T.M.�s �residence� borders on the frivolous. Further, given the trial court�s findings, this case is not, as Madlock seems to contend, his merely driving on a public street past T.M.�s house�either inadvertently or unknowingly. �The harassment order required that Madlock �avoid� T.M.�s house. �He knowingly did not. �Accordingly, we affirm.

��������� By the Court.�Judgment affirmed.

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