Reynolds v. Hepp

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his carjacking resulting in death conviction on grounds that State of Wisconsin violated his right to counsel when it stopped paying his state-appointed counsel during defendant’s direct appeal that resulted in counsel not pursuing equal protection challenge on carjacking statute, under circumstances where counsel subsequently remained in case and completed briefing on other issues and filed petition for review with Wisc. Supreme Ct. without obtaining compensation. Defendant waived any argument that such stopped payment constituted complete denial of counsel, where defendant had failed to raise said theory in state court. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly reject defendant’s claim that said stoppage of payment denied him effective assistance of counsel because said stoppage created financial conflict of interest between defendant and his counsel, since: (1) Supreme Ct. has not yet extended its multiple-representation conflict of interest decisions to instant financial conflict of interest case; and (2) it cannot be said that state court’s rejection of instant financial conflict of interest claim was contrary to or constituted unreasonable application of Supreme Ct. case law. Ct. further noted that any financial conflict of interest in instant case had no adverse consequence, where any assertion of equal protection claim by counsel would have been untimely.