Whyte v. Winkleski

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 21-1268
Decision Date: 
May 19, 2022
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his second-degree intentional homicide conviction on grounds that he was required to wear stun belt in front of jury, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object at trial.. Defendant procedurally defaulted his claims, under circumstances, where: (1) defendant failed to raise his stun belt and related ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims on direct appeal, which eventually resulted in Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruling that said claims were procedurally barred under Wisconsin case law; (2) although defendant filed pro se petition for post conviction relief alleging that his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise said claims on direct appeal, Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claim was itself procedurally defaulted because defendant’s pleadings on that issue were inadequate; and (3) defendant failed to show some type of external impediment that prevented him from presenting his claims for purposes of establishing cause for his procedural default.