On Point blog, page 1 of 3
Inmate’s previous motions didn’t bar habeas petition challenging implementation of sentences
State ex rel. Gregory S. Gorak v. Michael Meisner, Warden, 2017AP39, District 1, 2/27/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court denied Gorak’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus after deciding it was procedurally barred because the issues it raised had already been litigated and decided. The court of appeals holds that is not the case.
Insufficient allegation of prejudice dooms plea withdrawal claim
State v. Eugene B. Santiago, 2016AP1267, District 2, 5/3/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including state’s brief)
Santiago’s trial lawyer missed a charging error that led to an overstatement of the penalties Santiago faced; this failure doesn’t allow Santiago to withdraw his plea, however, because he fails to sufficiently allege that he would not have entered a plea if his lawyer had caught the mistake.
Guest Post: Rob Henak on 974.06 and SCOW’s new standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
State v. Tramell Starks, 2013 WI 69, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, case activity. Majority opinion by Justice Gableman, with a dissent by Justice Bradley and joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Crooks
On Point is pleased to present this guest post by Attorney Rob Henak, an expert on Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motions and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Carlos Trevino v. Thaler, USSC No. 10189, Cert Granted 10/29/12
Question Presented (from cert pet):
In federal habeas proceedings, undersigned counsel raised for the first time a claim under Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate the extraordinary mitigating evidence in Mr. Trevino’s life. The federal proceeding was stayed to allow exhaustion, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Mr. Trevino’s Wiggins claim under state abuse of the writ rules.
William Thompkins, Jr. v. Pfister, 7th Cir No. 10-2467, 10/23/12
seventh circuit decision, denying habeas relief in 641 N.E.2d 371 (Ill. 1994) and 521 N.E.2d 38 (1988)
Habeas Review – 6th Amendment Attachment of Counsel – State Court Findings
The Seventh Circuit rejects, on habeas review of his Illinois conviciton, Thompkins’ challenge to admissibility of his statement. Thompkins made his statement after his arrest and, according to the state court, before his initial bond hearing.
Paul Eichwedel v. Chandler, 7th Cir No. 09-1031, 8/29/12
Habeas – Procedural Default Defense: Waiver by State
Procedural default (here, failure to perfect the appeal in state court, hence failure to exhaust the claim) is an affirmative defense which may be forfeited or waived by the State. The State expressly waived any failure-to-exhaust objection, hence the court proceeds to the merits.
Habeas – PLRA and Right to Access the Courts
During the course of litigating an otherwise unrelated 42 U.S.C.
Collateral-Attack Procedure: Habeas (Knight Petition), Laches Bar – Serial Litigation Bar, Previously-Litigated Issue
State v. Jerred Renard Washington / Jerred Renard Washington v. State, 2012 WI App 74 (recommended for publication); case activity (974.06); case activity (writ)
Habeas (Knight Petition) – Laches
Following his plea-based conviction in 1997, Washington’s retained counsel filed a postconviction 809.30 motion in 1998. Counsel did not file a notice of appeal, however, after the motion was denied. Then, in 2009,
Habeas – Procedural Bar: Waiver by State
Patrick Wood v. Milyard, USSC No. 10-9995, 4/24/12, reversing 403 Fed. Appx. 335 (10th Cir 2010)
This case concerns the authority of a federal court to raise, on its own motion, a statute of limitations defense to a habeas corpus petition. After state prisoner Patrick Wood filed a federal habeas corpus petition, the State twice informed the U. S. District Court that it “[would] not challenge,
Habeas – Procedural Default – IAC Claim “Initial-Review” Collateral Proceeding
Luis Mariano Martinez v. Ryan, USSC No. 10-1001, 3/20/12, reversing and remanding, 623 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2011)
Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.
Habeas – Procedural Bar, Guilty Plea (IAC Claim)
Marilyn Mulero v. Thompson, 7th Cir No. 10-3875, 2/7/12
Habeas – Procedural Bar
Muleros’ failure to present various claims “through one complete round of state court review” operates as procedural default; citing, Smith v. McKee, 598 F.3d 374, 382 (7th Cir. 2010).
… While Mulero did present numerous other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to the Illinois state trial court and in her petition for review to the Illinois Supreme Court,