Minnick v. Winkleski

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his conviction on charges of aggravated battery, first-degree reckless endangerment and attempted burglary to which defendant had pleaded no contest and all of which arose out of domestic dispute with his wife. While defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for essentially guaranteeing that defendant would receive term of not more than 10 years (although defendant actually received 27-year term of initial confinement), such that defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his no contest pleas, AEDPA deference applied to Wisconsin Ct. of Appeals finding that trial counsel’s misjudgment of defendant’s likely sentence was not ineffective, where defendant did not present any evidence, besides incorrect estimate of his sentence, to suggest that trial counsel performed deficiently. Moreover, Ct. of Appeals determined that defendant knew at sentencing that trial court could impose maximum sentences, and that there was no guarantee that trial counsel’s estimate of his sentence would apply. Also, record showed that there were prior cases, where defendants facing similar charges had received sentences within range of trial counsel’s prediction. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise claim on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he could move to withdraw his no contest pleas prior to sentencing, where trial counsel acted reasonably in not advising defendant to make such motion, and where it was debatable whether instant unraised claim was clearly stronger than other claims raised on appeal.