Anthony Mertz v. Tarry Williams
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21802
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Mertz was sentenced to death in 2003 for McNamara’s murder; Governor Quinn commuted to life without parole in 2011.
- The government presented evidence of uncharged offenses (Amy Warner murder and Unique Apartments arson) and extensive aggravation at sentencing.
- Defense mitigation included testimony about family history, substance abuse, depression, and military background; attempts to rebut uncharged-offense evidence were not made.
- Mertz challenged trial counsel for ineffective assistance at sentencing in state court; the Illinois appellate court found his claims moot due to commutation.
- Federal habeas petition was denied de novo by the district court; the district court ultimately held no Strickland prejudice.
- The Seventh Circuit affirms, applying de novo review and concluding no prejudice even if performance was deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state court decision had preclusive effect | Mertz argues circuit decision on merits. | Government says mootness did not erase merits issue. | Preclusion found; district court misapplied mootness doctrine |
| Whether sentencing counsel was deficient under Strickland | Counsel failed to rebut uncharged-offense evidence. | Counsel’s overall strategy was reasonable; rebuttal not required. | Not deficient; strategic breadth supported by mitigation |
| Whether there was Strickland prejudice | Rebutting aggravations could have yielded a term-of-years sentence. | Even with rebuttal, substantial aggravation remained; unlikely to change sentence. | No substantial probability of different sentence |
| What standard of review applies under § 2254(d) | District court used de novo review favoring Mertz. | State court’s adjudication should be reviewed under § 2254(d). | De novo review aligns with § 2254(d) and supports denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (Supreme Court (2005)) (deficient sentencing investigation when relying on prior offense evidence)
- Pole v. Randolph, 570 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2009) (assess work of counsel as a whole; overall deficiency standard)
- Richardson v. Lemke, 745 F.3d 258 (7th Cir. 2014) (death sentence commuted, relief possible if adequate representation would yield term of years)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (Supreme Court (2011)) (probability of a different outcome must be substantial, not just conceivable)
- Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4 (Supreme Court (2009)) (cumulative mitigation testimony considerations)
- Felzak v. Hruby, 876 N.E.2d 650 (Ill. 2007) (mootness and effect on lower court judgments; preclusive effect not automatic)
- United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court (1950)) (reversing or vacating below when case becomes moot on appeal)