Gonzales v. Eplatt

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his Wisconsin attempted first-degree intentional homicide conviction and 25-year sentence, where defendant asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him to take plea deal on lesser charge of reckless endangerment that had maximum 7.5-year sentence. State court had denied defendant’s similar claim on ground that trial counsel’s performance did not fall below constitutional minimum by pursuing outright acquittal on all charges based on belief that government witnesses had inconsistent versions of incident and might be viewed as unbelievable based on their criminal histories. Ct. of Appeals, although affirming instant denial based on applicable standard of review, was troubled by fact that trial counsel did not alter her approach during trial when it became apparent that government witness were presenting consistent testimonies that defendant was shooter during incident, and where defendant admitted to counsel during trial that he was shooter. However, applicable standard of review required deference to state court’s assessment of trial counsel’s performance, as there was possibility for fair-minded disagreement as to sufficiency of trial counsel’s performance.