On Point: 22. Habeas corpus

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.”

Rodney Lass v. Jason Wells, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 23-2880, 6/26/24

Lass was charged with multiple felony counts after his first trial on misdemeanor domestic abuse charges ended in a mistrial. During state postconviction and appeal proceedings, he raised claims of vindictive prosecution, ineffective assistance, and violation of his 6th amendment rights. The 7th Circuit denied relief as to Lass’s IAC and 6th amendment claims as procedurally defaulted, and rejects the vindictive prosecution claim because the Wisconsin courts already considered and reasonably rejected Lass’s same “fact-based arguments.”

Keith C. Henyard v. Cheryl Eplett, No. 22-3086, 4/26/24

Although Henyard argues that his conviction must be reversed because the lawyer who represented him was also the judicial official who bound him over for trial, the Seventh Circuit denies relief and holds that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not erroneously apply governing federal law.

Robert J. Pope v. Je’Leslie Taylor, No. 23-2894, 5/6/24, affirming Pope v. Kemper, 21-CV-0346 (E.D. Wis. 9/1/23)

In a refreshing defense win that cuts through the procedural weeds and directly attacks the unjust nature of Pope’s treatment by Wisconsin’s appellate courts, the Seventh Circuit wastes no time in affirming the district court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus.

Jared L. Spencer v. Michael Meisner, 21-cv-0326 (E.D. Wis. 4/26/24).

In an intriguing habeas win, the district court swats away the usual arguments about “reliance” and “harmlessness” in order to find that Spencer’s constitutional right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information was violated.