William Avila v. Reed Richardson
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8615
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Avila pleaded guilty in Wisconsin state court to repeated sexual assault of a child, producing child pornography, and 16 counts of possessing it; total sentence 35 years plus 20 years of extended supervision.
- Defense counsel allegedly told Avila he would receive five years if he pleaded guilty; Avila claims this was ineffective assistance of counsel influencing the plea.
- Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected Avila’s ineffective-assistance claim, holding the plea waived nonjurisdictional defects, including claims of counsel’s performance.
- Supreme Court precedents Hill v. Lockhart and Strickland establish a two-part test and the ability to challenge a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance.
- The district court denied habeas relief; Avila sought relief and a certificate of appealability, which was granted for the plea-ineffectiveness issue.
- The Seventh Circuit held the state court’s waiver ruling contradicted clearly established federal law, warranting relief and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of plea-based claims conflicts with Hill/Strickland | Avila argues waiver contradicts Hill v. Lockhart’s exception for ineffective assistance in plea decisions. | State contends waiver is consistent with precedents like Lasky that nonjurisdictional defects are waived by guilty pleas. | Waiver rule contradicted Hill; relief available for plea-based ineffectiveness. |
| Whether the state court's reasoning deprived Avila of an adequate federal-law inquiry | Avila asserts he could prove ineffective assistance but was barred by faulty waiver reasoning. | State argues the issue was waived and thus not properly before federal court. | State court’s reasoning violated clearly established federal law; remand appropriate. |
| Whether Avila is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the ineffectiveness claim | Avila seeks an evidentiary hearing under AEDPA to develop factual basis for ineffective assistance. | State argues AEDPA precludes new fact-finding. | AEDPA does not bar an evidentiary hearing; district court should conduct one. |
| Whether the habeas petition should be granted or remanded for further proceedings | If state court error existed, relief is warranted and further fact development may be necessary. | State urges reaffirmation of denial given procedural posture. | Because of error and viable claim, reverse and remand for evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court 1985) (two-part Strickland test applies to guilty-plea ineffectiveness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance claims)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court 2000) (defining AEDPA deference standards)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (Supreme Court 2011) (harms of unexplained state-court decisions under AEDPA)
- Davis v. Lambert, 388 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2004) (duty to consider whether a petitioner diligently developed the record)
- Mosley v. Atchison, 689 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing actual entitlement from mere eligibility for relief)
- United States v. Villegas, 388 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2004) (recognizing Hill-based exception for plea-stage ineffectiveness)