On Point: 22. Habeas corpus

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Christopher P. Kawleski v. State, 2022AP1129, 7/3/25, District IV, (recommended for publication); case activity

COA recommends publication in a case addressing how to calculate the maximum discharge date for a defendant sentenced to a bifurcated sentence on a felony between 1999 and 2003 upon release from reconfinement after extended supervision was revoked.

Michael Williams v. Michael Meisner, No. 23-3268, 6/16/25

In a case that likely signals the end of a long legal battle over a Wisconsin jury instruction telling jurors to “search for the truth,” the Seventh Circuit holds that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.

Curtis L. Walker v. Dan Cromwell, No. 23-2240, 6/16/25

Despite making a “strong case for relief” that his de-facto life sentence for a homicide committed when he was 17 violated the Eighth Amendment, the Seventh Circuit held that Curtis Walker’s habeas petition could not overcome the heavy burden imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to show that the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court because the Court’s precedents were not “a model of clarity.”

Rivers v. Guerrero, USSC No. 23-1345, 6/12/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

A unanimous SCOTUS held that a habeas petitioner’s second filing asserting a new claim for relief, submitted after the district court entered judgment with respect to the first filing but while the first filing was pending on appeal, qualifies as a “second or successive” petition and must be approved by the court of appeals before considered by the district court.

Leon Carter v. Lizzie Tiegels, No. 23-1266, 4/24/25

In a knotty habeas case, the complexities of habeas corpus law mean that Carter’s challenges to how COA handled his no-merit appeal and an underlying (and unique) claim of juror intrusion do not merit relief.

Jacob Alan Powers v. Jon Noble, No. 24-2134, 3/25/25

The Seventh Circuit found that Jacob Powers was competent to stand trial in a Wisconsin court in 2006 for sexual assault of a child and child enticement.  Although Powers’ IQ was in the borderline/mild mental retardation range; his trial testimony, trial counsel’s decision not to challenge his competency, and two experts’ findings that he was competent convinced the Court that he reasonably understood the charges against him, trial procedures, and could assist his lawyer in his defense.  The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s order denying Powers’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Breion S. Woodson v. Bradley Mlodzik, No. 22-3153, 2/28/25

Although Woodson has new evidence seeming to suggest he was sentenced on the basis of inaccurate information, the complex procedural rules of habeas litigation require affirmance.

William Thomas Hudson, III v. Sue DeHaan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 23-2395, 2/11/25

Hudson was tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit first degree intentional homicide and of conspiracy to commit arson. After his convictions were affirmed on his direct appeal, Hudson filed a 974.06 postconviction motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call his sister as a witness and not investigating her potential testimony, and that his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these claims.

Graham L. Stowe v. Gregory Van Rybroek, No. 23-3345, 8/21/24

This habeas appeal is limited to a facial challenge to the NGI conditional release statute, Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4)(d). The Seventh Circuit rejects Stowe’s argument, concluding that he cannot show that there are no circumstances under which the law’s application would be valid.

Karl W. Nichols v. Lance Wiersma, No. 22-3059, 7/16/24

In a complicated case that contains many harsh lessons about the standards applicable to habeas petitions, the Seventh Circuit affirms an order denying habeas relief as the exculpatory value of unpreserved evidence was not “apparent.”