Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Nix; People v. Armstrong; Notice; MCR 6.201; Expert witness testimony; MRE 702; People v. Dobek; People v. Petri; Failure to raise a meritless argument or futile objection; People v. Ericksen; Waiver; People v. Gonzalez; Abandoned issue; People v. Payne; “Other acts” evidence; MRE 404(b); MRE 404(a)(1); People v. Vasher; Evidence of another offense of sexual abuse under MCL 768.27a; Whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. McGhee; Trial strategy; People v. Russell; People v. Stewart (On Remand); Terms of probation; The sentencing judge’s wide discretion in setting conditions of probation; MCL 771.2 & 3; People v. Miller; People v. Graber; A defendant’s fundamental constitutional right to parent his children; Troxel v. Granville; Principle that proper probationary restrictions related to a defendant’s rehabilitation do not violate this right; People v. Branson; No-contact condition; People v. Zujko

The court held that the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court did not err by allowing the admission of other acts evidence or abuse its discretion by imposing a no-contact condition on probation. He was convicted of CSC II and sentenced to 365 days in jail and 5 years’ probation, the conditions of which included restrictions on contact with his two adopted children and a child who was adopted by his former wife. His conviction arose out of his sexual assault of his niece. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. It noted that he waived review of the issue of whether counsel failed to consult an expert witness by contributing to the error, and that there was no prejudice. It further found that counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the prosecution’s expert’s qualifications because objection would have been futile, and that counsel’s cross-examination was adequate. The court also rejected his argument that the trial court erred by admitting other acts evidence. It found that although it “incorrectly referenced MRE 404(b) when deciding to admit the evidence, it correctly performed the MRE 403” balancing test, that it “correctly determined that defendant placed his character in issue during his opening statement and during his direct” examination, and that he was not prejudiced. Finally, it rejected his contention that “the probation condition of no-contact with his adopted daughters and the son adopted by his former wife” violated his constitutional right to parent his children. The court held that “prohibiting contact with his adopted daughters for the five-year term bears a rational relationship to the defendant’s rehabilitation.” Affirmed.