Richard Plank v. Denise Symdon
697 F. App'x 464
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Richard Plank, a Wisconsin inmate, was convicted at a bench trial for battery and disorderly conduct after his girlfriend testified he cut her leg and broke her nose.
- Pretrial attorney Katherine Seifert withdrew a week before trial and provided Plank discovery she had received from the state, including a CD of the state’s photographs.
- Plank proceeded pro se with Seifert as standby counsel; he argued the victim self-inflicted the cut and pointed to photos and medical records to dispute a broken nose; a lab report showed no victim blood on knives recovered.
- At trial the court considered two ER reports (one mentioning a broken nose, one not), the lab report, and the state’s photos, but credited the victim’s testimony and found Plank guilty; the weapon was not recovered.
- Plank alleged post-conviction that Seifert withheld or delayed exculpatory materials (photos, the ER report omitting the broken nose, and the lab report); the state courts and the federal district court denied relief under Strickland for lack of prejudice.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the state court reasonably concluded Plank could not show a reasonable probability that earlier disclosure would have changed the outcome since the same evidence was before the trial judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial counsel’s delayed or withheld disclosure of exculpatory discovery constituted ineffective assistance under Strickland | Seifert’s delay in giving photos, an ER report omitting the broken nose, and the lab report undermined Plank’s trial preparation and prejudiced the outcome | Seifert provided the discovery she received; the contested evidence was before the trial court and Plank shows no reasonable probability the outcome would differ | Denied — appellate court reasonably applied Strickland; no demonstrated prejudice |
| Whether the state appellate court unreasonably applied federal ineffective-assistance standards in habeas review | The state court failed to find counsel deficient and prejudicial for delayed disclosure | The state court’s Strickland analysis was reasonable and supported by the record | Denied — federal habeas relief not warranted under AEDPA deference |
| Whether evidence not timely disclosed could have changed Plank’s trial strategy or outcome | Plank contends earlier access would have improved his preparation and defense presentation | Trial record shows lab report and photos were considered; Plank did not specify what he would have done differently | Denied — no specific showing of altered strategy or reasonable probability of a different result |
| Whether the habeas certificate’s scope should be expanded to other claims | Plank sought broader review of additional claims | Court limited review to the certificate; prior request to expand had been denied | Denied — review limited to certified issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard for deficiency and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (reasonable-probability requirement in Strickland habeas review)
- Carter v. Duncan, 819 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2016) (application of Strickland in circuit precedent)
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (certificate of appealability scope principles)
- Peterson v. Douma, 751 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2014) (COA and scope limitations)
- Thompson v. United States, 732 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2013) (construing pro se requests to expand COA)
- Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2001) (briefing requirements and appellate parsing)