Shun Warren v. Michael Baenen
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6674
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Warren killed Deshan Morrow during a marijuana transaction after a gun was brought to the car.
- He was charged with first-degree intentional homicide and pled no contest to first-degree reckless homicide as a party to a crime, while armed.
- He attempted to withdraw his plea soon after, and the court replaced his attorney with new counsel.
- The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the plea, and Warren pursued appeals in state courts.
- He then filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in federal district court raising ineffective assistance and due process claims, which the district court denied but issued a certificate on five claims.
- The appellate court reviews these AEDPA standards de novo or under the deferential AEDPA framework as appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate) | Wynn failed to investigate self-defense witnesses. | No reasonable likelihood these witnesses would have changed outcomes. | No reversible error; no prejudice shown. |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (competence investigation) | Wynn failed to pursue pre-plea competence evaluation. | Warren showed competency; no prejudice from not seeking pre-plea hearing. | No prejudice; no reversible error. |
| Due process: validity of plea withdrawal | Plea was not knowing or voluntary due to ineffective assistance and potential incompetence. | Record shows knowing, voluntary plea; no valid basis to withdraw. | No due process violation; plea withdrawal proper. |
| Ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel | Nantz should have raised the same issues as Wynn. | Counsel not deficient for failing to raise meritless claims. | No merit; not ineffective. |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising issues | Bowe failed to raise ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. | Claims lacked merit; no prejudice from appellate omission. | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice inquiry in plea cases focuses on likelihood of plea withdrawal changing outcome)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (competence standard for defendant's capacity to assist counsel)
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1992) (knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entering plea standard)
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2009) (de novo review when state court did not address merits of federal issue)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA deference requires objective reasonableness in applying Supreme Court standards)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2003) (deference to state court factual determinations; substantial evidence standard)
- Richter v. Roberts, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (highly deferential standard for federal review of state court adjudications)
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1977) (state law procedural defaults and federal review interplay)
- Burt v. Uchtman, 422 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2005) (competence and need for competency assessment context-specific guidance)
- England v. United States, 555 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2009) (reliability and sufficiency of evidence at sentencing)