By: Derek Hawkins//July 19, 2017//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. V.C., Jr.
Case No.: 2016AP2077
Officials: DUGAN, J.
Focus: Court Error – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
V.C., Jr. (“V.C.”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his son, J.T.C., and the postdispositional court’s order denying his postdispositional motion alleging that he was denied his right to counsel at the plea hearing, that trial counsel was ineffective because he did not object to the foster parent’s testimony that promised future contact between J.T.C. and the biological family, if termination were to occur (the “future contact testimony”), and requesting a new trial in the interest of justice.
On appeal, V.C. argues that (1) he was denied his right to counsel at the plea hearing because facts were incorporated into the record that had been presented at A.S.F.’s ground trial (the “trial”) where neither V.C. nor his attorney were present, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the future contact testimony. He also requests a new trial in the interest of justice.
For the reasons stated below, we agree with the postdispositional court that V.C. was not denied his right to counsel at the plea hearing and he cannot establish that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the future contact testimony. As to the denial of right to counsel claim, the record establishes that no evidence from A.S.F.’s trial was admitted at V.C.’s prove-up. As to the denial of effective assistance of counsel claim, Darryl T.-H. v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, ¶29, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475, holds that future contact testimony is admissible; therefore, V.C. has not shown deficient performance. We also deny the request for a new trial.