Williams v. Eckstein
2:17-cv-00602
E.D. Wis.Aug 2, 2017Background
- Petitioner Jovan Williams filed a §2254 habeas petition challenging his 2013 Milwaukee County conviction for felony murder (party to a crime; armed robbery predicate).
- Williams alleged four grounds: (1) insufficient evidence he participated in the robbery; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (multiple specified omissions); (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (no‑merit brief without consultation; failure to raise trial counsel errors); and (4) sentencing court abused discretion by not considering his history/status and imposing a 15‑year term despite nonparticipation.
- Williams moved to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted a six‑month jail account statement showing no funds; the court granted leave to proceed without prepaying the $5 filing fee.
- The court screened the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases and found the first three grounds present cognizable federal constitutional claims under the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments; the sentencing claim was a state‑law sentencing error and not cognizable on habeas.
- Williams also moved for appointed counsel; he showed efforts to obtain counsel and some limitations (restrictive housing, education, mental‑health issues), but the court denied appointment without prejudice, finding the case not yet so complex as to require counsel.
- The court ordered respondent Warden Scott Eckstein to answer or otherwise respond to grounds one through three within 60 days and set a briefing schedule and page limits for merits briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Williams: state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he participated in the robbery | State: conviction rests on sufficient evidence (to be developed in response) | Court allowed claim to proceed for merits review |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Williams: counsel omitted numerous pretrial and trial actions (motions, suppression, impeachment, instructions, plea) | State: counsel provided constitutionally adequate representation (to be argued in answer) | Court allowed claim to proceed |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Williams: appellate counsel filed a no‑merit brief without consulting him and failed to raise trial counsel errors | State: appellate counsel’s conduct was adequate under applicable standards (to be argued) | Court allowed claim to proceed |
| Sentencing abuse of discretion (state law) | Williams: sentencing court abused discretion by not considering mitigating history/status and imposing 15 years despite nonparticipation | State: sentencing was a state‑law decision within court’s discretion | Court dismissed this claim for habeas purposes as a state‑law sentencing error (not cognizable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (habeas relief unavailable for errors of state law)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (standards for appointing counsel in habeas cases; two‑part Pruitt analysis)
- Wilson v. Duckworth, 716 F.2d 415 (7th Cir. 1983) (guidance on appointment of counsel for indigent civil litigants)
- Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir. 1992) (factors for assessing counsel appointment requests in civil cases)