964 F.3d 621
7th Cir.2020Background
- Gregory Williams faced two separate Illinois cases for rapes/kidnappings (victims J.H. and S.D.); a combined 402 recommendation produced a 41-year plea package for both cases.
- At a 402 conference Judge Claps recommended 20 years in one case and 21 in the other (41 years total); Williams’s counsel advised rejecting the offer and pursued a GBMI-focused defense.
- Williams went to bench trial in J.H.’s case, stipulated to lineup and DNA evidence, was convicted and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 66 years. He later pleaded guilty in S.D.’s case and received 30 years concurrent with the 66-year sentence.
- Williams filed a postconviction petition claiming ineffective assistance: counsel unreasonably advised rejecting the 41-year plea and failed to inform him of his maximum sentencing exposure if convicted at trial.
- Illinois courts denied relief, emphasizing that Williams’s petition omitted virtually all factual detail about S.D.’s case (one half of the 41-year offer), leaving the record too thin to evaluate counsel’s conduct.
- The federal district court and the Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief, holding the state court decision was reasonable under AEDPA and that Williams failed to show prejudice or diligence warranting an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising rejection of the 41-year plea | Williams: counsel advised him to reject a favorable 41-year package despite strong evidence and thus performed deficiently | State: counsel could reasonably counsel rejection because the plea encompassed two cases (J.H. and S.D.) and outcomes in the other case could justify rejection | Denied — state court reasonably found record too thin about S.D. to show deficient performance |
| Whether counsel failed to inform Williams of maximum sentencing exposure if he proceeded to trial | Williams: counsel never advised him of the sentencing consequences of rejecting the plea for both cases | State: record is vague; courts may presume factual adjudication; insufficient detail to show counsel withheld sentencing exposure information | Denied — lack of factual detail (especially about S.D.) forecloses finding of deficient performance or prejudice |
| Whether Williams demonstrated prejudice (would have accepted plea but for counsel’s errors) | Williams: but for bad advice/omitted information he would have accepted the 41-year plea | State: because the plea covered two cases and S.D.’s facts are unknown, there is no reasonable probability he would have accepted the offer | Denied — court evaluated prejudice de novo and found inadequate record to show reasonable probability of acceptance |
| Whether Williams was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) | Williams: hearing was necessary to develop factual record about counsel’s advice and S.D.’s case | State: Williams failed to diligently develop facts about S.D. in state court; § 2254(e)(2) bars a hearing absent diligence or proof of innocence | Denied — court found insufficient diligence in developing facts about both cases, so no hearing warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective assistance test)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (right to effective counsel in plea negotiations; prejudice requires reasonable probability defendant would have accepted plea)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (ineffective-assistance principles apply to plea-related advice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; state-court decisions entitled to great deference)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (doubly deferential review when Strickland and AEDPA overlap)
- Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (federal habeas review looks to last reasoned state-court decision)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (§ 2254(e)(2) and the diligence requirement for evidentiary hearings)
- Torres-Chavez v. United States, 828 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. standard for counsel advising rejection of plea in face of overwhelming evidence)