Steinhardt v. Cooper, 2:18-cv-01410

In 2013 Steinhardt’s husband sexually assaulted her daughter (under 13); Steinhardt admitted bringing the child to the bedroom and sitting on the bed during the assault.
Steinhardt pleaded no contest in 2014 to: failure to protect a child (Count 1), first-degree sexual assault of a child as a party to the crime (Count 2), and child enticement (Count 3); received consecutive and concurrent lengthy terms.
She moved postconviction to vacate Count 1 as multiplicitous with Count 2 and sought a hearing on whether counsel was ineffective for not raising the double jeopardy claim.
Wisconsin appellate courts affirmed: the WI Supreme Court held Counts 1 and 2 were legally overlapping but not identical in fact (separate volitional acts), and concluded the legislature intended cumulative punishments; therefore counsel was not ineffective.
On federal habeas, the district court applied AEDPA deference, found the state courts’ fact- and state-law-based multiplicity analysis reasonable and not reviewable on federal habeas, and denied relief on both double jeopardy and ineffective-assistance claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Counts 1 and 2 are multiplicitous under the Double Jeopardy Clause	Steinhardt: Counts punish the same offense; multiple punishments violate Fifth Amendment	State: Counts rest on different volitional acts (bringing the child vs. failing to prevent while on the bed); legislature intended cumulative punishments	Denied — state court reasonably found offenses different in fact and legislative intent supports cumulative punishments; AEDPA bars federal relitigation
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise/raise a double jeopardy claim	Steinhardt: Counsel failed to advise of a viable multiplicity/double jeopardy claim	State: The double jeopardy claim was meritless, so counsel’s failure to raise it was not deficient	Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland because the underlying double jeopardy claim lacked merit

Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1969) (double jeopardy protection applies to the states)
Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376 (U.S. 1989) (double jeopardy includes protection against multiple punishments)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (legislative intent determines permissibility of multiple punishments)
United States v. Allender, 62 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 1995) (inquiry into the allowable unit of prosecution)
Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1981) (legislature may authorize cumulative punishments)
McCloud v. Deppisch, 409 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2005) (state legislative intent governs double jeopardy analysis for state sentences)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (state-law errors are not cognizable on federal habeas absent fundamental unfairness)
United States v. Lockett, 859 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2017) (guilty plea waives multiplicity claims not resolvable on the plea record)
Northern v. Boatwright, 594 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2010) (lawyer not deficient for failing to raise a meritless objection)