Garcia v. Cromwell

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective on two grounds. Said claims, which were included in second post-conviction petition that was denied by Wisconsin state court on procedural grounds, had been filed by defendant after first post-conviction that alleged claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on different ground was denied by Wisconsin state court. Under Wisconsin law, defendant was required to raise all available claims for relief in his first post-conviction petition or on direct appeal, and Wisconsin statute bars successive post-conviction petitions unless defendant could demonstrate sufficient reason for failing to raise his claims earlier, as well as factual showing that his defaulted claims were clearly stronger than claim contained in original post-conviction petition. As such, federal review of claims in defendant’s habeas petition was barred, where Wisconsin court’s denial of defendant’s second post-conviction petition that raised instant claims of ineffective assistance of counsel constituted independent and adequate state-law ground for denial of defendant’s claims on procedural default basis. Moreover, defendant failed to establish cause for and prejudice from instant procedural default, where: (1) defendant did not identify any external impediment that prevented him from including instant claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in his original post-conviction petition; and (2) evidence of defendant’s guilt on underlying charges of attempted homicide was overwhelming so as to prelude finding of prejudice arising out of instant procedural default.