William Avila v. Reed Richardson, 670 F. App'x 896

Background

William L. Avila pled guilty in Wisconsin to repeated sexual assault and exploitation of a child and possession of child pornography; sentencing was left open and he received 35 years.
Avila sought federal habeas relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), principally that counsel told him he faced only a five-year sentence and that he would not have pled guilty if he had known the true exposure.
This court previously reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing; the district court held a hearing, credited trial counsel over Avila, and again denied relief.
On remand Avila also argued counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements after he invoked his right to counsel (Miranda/Edwards/Bradshaw issues).
The district court found police gave Miranda warnings, Avila initially invoked counsel but later made incriminating statements and executed written consent to further questioning and a computer search.
The court concluded (1) credibility findings favor counsel as to the five-year advice claim, and (2) even if a suppression motion had partial success, abundant independent evidence remained, so counsel’s plea strategy was reasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel told Avila he faced only five years and Avila relied on that advice in pleading guilty	Avila: counsel told him only a five-year exposure and he would not have pled otherwise	State: district court credited counsel’s denial; Avila’s testimony less credible and possibly self-serving	Court upheld district court credibility finding for counsel; no clear error, so IAC claim fails
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress statements after Avila invoked right to counsel	Avila: police continued prompting after he asked for a lawyer; counsel should have moved to suppress resulting evidence	State: police gave Miranda; Avila later initiated conversation, made admissions, and consented to search; suppression unlikely to change outcome	Court: even if suppression had some success, independent and strong evidence remained; counsel’s plea strategy was objectively reasonable
Whether the suppression/Edwards/Bradshaw issue was improperly outside scope of remand	Avila: issue raised on remand as alternative IAC theory	State: did not raise procedural objections and litigated merits	Court: considered merits because state defended claim; §2254(d) deference not applicable
Whether the district court applied correct standard in reviewing factual findings	Avila: challenges credibility and argues specificity favors his account	State: factual findings entitled to deference unless clearly erroneous	Court: applied clear-error standard and found no clear error in crediting counsel

Key Cases Cited

Avila v. Richardson, 751 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2014) (prior appellate decision reversing and remanding for evidentiary hearing)
Pidgeon v. Smith, 785 F.3d 1165 (7th Cir. 2015) (habeas relief where plea relied on erroneous sentencing advice)
Moore v. Bryant, 348 F.3d 238 (7th Cir. 2003) (same principle re: plea induced by incorrect advice)
Williams v. Bartow, 481 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2007) (clear-error standard for district-court factual findings in habeas context)
Whitehead v. Cowan, 263 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2001) (same)
United States v. Mays, 819 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 2016) (deference to credibility determinations)
United States v. Biggs, 491 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2007) (credibility findings rarely clearly erroneous)
Shell v. United States, 448 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 2006) (IAC claim for failing to file suppression motion requires showing the motion would have succeeded)
United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353 (7th Cir. 2005) (same)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (custodial interrogation must cease after suspect requests counsel)
Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) (clarifies when suspect may reinitiate conversation after invocation of counsel)