Yeoman v. Pollard

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 15-3489
Decision Date: 
November 16, 2017
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying with prejudice defendant’s habeas petition challenging his Wisconsin first degree intentional murder conviction under circumstances where: (1) defendant filed habeas petition that contained three claims that had not been exhausted in state court and three claims that had been exhausted in state court; (2) Dist. Ct. denied defendant’s request to stay and hold his petition in abeyance so that he could return to state court to fully exhaust his state court remedies as to certain claims; and (3) Dist. Ct. denied habeas petition on exhausted claims where said claims lacked any merit. Defendant’s apparent strategy of splitting his claims into groups that had and had not been exhausted in state court was inconsistent with AEDPA’s goal of streamlining habeas proceedings. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s stay motion, where defendant’s intent at time he sought said stay had effect of delaying exhaustion of state court remedies as to certain claims in hope of reinstating his direct appeal rights on other claims. Thus, Dist. Ct. properly denied instant stay request and dismiss habeas petition, even though said dismissal would preclude habeas review of defendant’s unexhausted claims.