|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED OCTOBER 17, 1995 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
Nos. 95-1131
95-1132
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
IN THE INTEREST OF
DAVID E. V., A PERSON
UNDER THE AGE OF 18:
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DAVID E. V.,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEALS[1]
from an order of the circuit court for Outagamie County: DENNIS C. LUEBKE, Judge. Affirmed.
CANE, P.J. David E. V. appeals the juvenile court's
order extending his custody with the Department of Health and Social Services
for a period of one year. David had
previously been found delinquent for numerous violations and placed at the
Lincoln Hills School. The State then
transferred his placement to the Ethan Allen School where he was charged with
battery to a staff member. While that
charge was pending before another court, the State petitioned for a one-year
extension of David's custody.
David raises two issues
on appeal. First, he contends that at
the extension hearing the trial court failed to make the necessary findings of
fact and conclusions of law required under § 48.365(2m)(a), Stats.
Second, he contends the record fails to establish that he knowingly and
voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
This court rejects his contentions and affirms the order.
Section 48.365(2m)(a), Stats., provides in pertinent part
that, at the extension hearing, the judge shall make findings of fact and conclusions
of law based on the evidence, including a finding as to whether reasonable
efforts were made by the agency primarily responsible for providing services to
the child to make it possible for the child to return to his or her home. As counsel for David notes, this was a very
short hearing where much of the discussion centered on the charges pending in
adult court against David for battery to a staff worker at Ethan Allen
School. However, attached to the petition
for extension of David's custody was a lengthy narration of David's history in
the juvenile justice system and reasons for the requested extension. Although the transcript of the extension
hearing is short, it appears that because David was not disputing the requested
extension, there was no need for an extended hearing because all the necessary
information was before the court.[2]
Contrary to David's
argument, the court entered a written order setting forth its findings of fact
and conclusions of law. The court found
that the allegations in the petition had been proven, and it adopted the allegations
as its findings of fact. Additionally,
it approved the petition and specifically found that, "Continuation of the
child in the parent or relative's home is contrary to the welfare of the child
and reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the removal of
the child from the home."
Next, David contends the
record fails to establish that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to
counsel at the extension hearing. Again
the record is sparse on this issue, but it does reflect that at the beginning
of the hearing, David received and read a copy of the petition which outlined
his right to have an attorney.
Additionally, the petition demonstrates that David has had previous
delinquency hearings where he was represented by an attorney. Finally, the court specifically asked him on
two occasions whether he wanted an attorney, and on each occasion David
indicated that he wanted to appear without an attorney. David waived his right to counsel. Therefore, the order extending David's
custody for a period of one year is affirmed.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.