Maldonado v. Hepp
2:16-cv-00115-PP
E.D. Wis.Dec 14, 2023Background
- Johnny Maldonado was convicted in Wisconsin state court in 2012 for first-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree intentional homicide, stemming from a gang-related shooting.
- The prosecution introduced evidence about a prior shooting (the "Waukegan homicide") to establish motive, over Maldonado’s objection.
- Maldonado was tried jointly with his co-defendant Nieves. An eyewitness, Vargas, testified Maldonado was one of the shooters; another witness, Trinidad, testified Maldonado confessed to him in jail.
- Maldonado’s postconviction motions claimed ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, particularly for failing to object to hearsay, and for not calling two inmates, Sullivan and Harper, who allegedly could have impeached Trinidad.
- Wisconsin courts found any errors to be harmless, based largely on the strength of Vargas’s eyewitness testimony.
- Maldonado filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Maldonado’s Argument | Hepp’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective Assistance—Failure to Object to Hearsay | Counsel failed to object to hearsay (Boogie Man statement), prejudicing defense | No prejudice, as trial court had overruled prior objection and other evidence was strong | No ineffective assistance; no reasonable probability of a different result |
| Ineffective Assistance—Failure to Call Impeachment Witnesses | Counsel should have called Sullivan and Harper to impeach Trinidad | Their testimony would not prove Trinidad lied; evidence against Maldonado was overwhelming | No ineffective assistance; failure to call did not affect outcome |
| Ineffective Assistance—Appellate Counsel | Appellate counsel failed to raise the above ineffective assistance claims | Not prejudicial; state courts addressed claims on merits | No relief; ground not necessary as state courts addressed merits |
| Certificate of Appealability | Decision was debatable among reasonable jurists | Decision not reasonably debatable; standard not met | Certificate denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (sets standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (defines ‘contrary to’ and ‘unreasonable application’ of federal law for habeas review)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (defines "objectively unreasonable" application)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (reiterates limits on relief under AEDPA)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (emphasizes deference to state court decisions in habeas cases)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (applies Strickland prejudice standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland to plea bargains)
- Miller v. Smith, 765 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2014) (applies federal habeas standards)
- Charlton v. Davis, 439 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 2006) (last state court decision controls)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (further restricts federal habeas review of state-court decisions)