W e s ubs t i tu te Lar ry J en ki ns , the c ur re ntwarde n o fFox Lake  Cor re c t i ona l I ns t i t ut i on, as the Res ponde nti n thi s ac t i on. S eeF ed . R . A p p . P . 43 (c)(2 ).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2809 A LA N R. W ARD , Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. L ARRY J EN KI NS, W ar den, Fox Lake Cor re cti onalInsti tuti on ,  R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:07- CV-961

—L ynnA delm an, Judge .
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 12, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 23, 2010

Befo re C UDAH Y, M A NI ON, an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, C irc uit Ju dg e. Petitioner A lan R

. W ard p lead ed guilty in W iscons in state c o u r t to felony th eft b y c o n t r a c t o ra n d fe l o n y b a i lj u mpin ga ft e rt a k i n gd o wn2 N o. 08

- 2809 pay m ents fr o m c us to m er s o fhi s ho m e i m pr o ve m en t bu siness wi th o utpe r f o r m i nga ny o fthe wor khe c o ntr ac te d t o do

. He was s en te nc ed to fi ve y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t an d ni ne y ea r s’ su per vi se d r el ea se . W ar d sought p os tc on vic tio n relie f in t h e s ta te co u rt s a rg u in g, inte r alia , that hi s c ou n sel w as i neffecti ve because he i gnor ed W ar d’s re quests to fi l e a m oti on t o w ith d raw hi s guil ty ple a pri orto se ntenci ng. A fterexhausting st ate post
co nv i ct i o n r emedi es , W ar d s o ughtfed er alhabe as c o r pus re l i efunder 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed W ar d’s peti ti on without hol ding an ev i denti ar y hea ring. B ec au se W ar d h as alleg ed fac ts w h ich , i f p r o ve n, w ou ld enti tl e hi m to fed er alhabea s r el i ef, and beca use he w as neveraff or ded a fulland f ai r he ar in g in the sta te cour ts, w e r em and to the d i str i ct courtf oran e vi denti ar y hea ring.

I . B AC KGR OUND W ar d o w ned a hom e i m prove m ent busi ness c al l ed W ar d Co nstr uct i o n. Tho ugh W ar d m ayha ve b ee n a sk i l l ed co nt r ac to r, he ha d se r i o us pr o bl ems wi ththe fi na nc i als i d e o fh i s o p e r a t i o n . Wa r d a c c e p t e d d o wn p aym en ts from nu m erou s c u stom ers, bu t fai led to p erf o r m the wo r k he c o nt r a c t e d t o do

. As a r e s ul t, he was charg ed w i th m ult ip le vi ol ati ons ofW i sco nsi n’s cr i m i nal th e ftb y c o n t r a c t o rs t a t u t e , Wi s . S t a t
. § 9 4 3
. 2 0 ( 1 ) ( b)

. He w as al so su b sequentl y c harg ed w i th m ult i ple co unts o f fel o ny b ai lj um pi ng, W i s. S ta t. § 9 46
. 49 ( 1) ( b) , whenhe continued to r un his busi ness after p osti ng ba i li n vi ol ati on o fhi s s i gnatur e bo nd

. Over al l, W ar d w as charg ed i n f our i nfo rm ati ons w i th 21 to talco unts o ftheft by contr acto r and bai lj um ping.N o. 08

- 2809 3 W ard had a plea he aring i n Sa uk Cou nt y C ircuit Cou rt on M ar ch 10, 20 04. H e w as re prese nted by att or ney RogerKlo pp , wh om he m et f orthe fi rs t t i m e that day. W ar d cla im s t h at atn o t im e d u rin g th at m ee tin g d id K l o p p r e v i e w p o s s ib l e d e fe n s e s t o th e c h a r g e s w i th h i m. A t the hear i ng , t h e stat e s et f or th the te rm s o fa ple a agr eem ent. W ar d w oul d plea d gui l ty to two co unts o f th eftby co n tr ac to r an d th re e c ou n ts of felo n y b ail j um pi ng, a nd the r em ainingc o unt s i n the v ar i o us i nf o r m at i o ns woul d b e di smi ss ed, b utr ead i n fo rthe pu rpos es ofse ntenci ng and r est i tuti on. T h e am ount o f re sti tuti on would b e d ete rm i ned i n conj uncti on with se nt en cing, a nd the s ta te woul d c ap i ts t o ta lc o nfi ne m en t re com m endati on t o si x yea rs . So m e co nfusi on e nsued w hen i t ca m e t i m e forW ar d to e nt e ra p l e a . A ske d h o w War d wi s he d t o p l e a , Kl o pp i ni ti al l y a ns wer ed “n o c o nt es t. ” The c o ur t no te d thatthe pl eaa g r ee m en t was b as ed o n a p lea o fg ui l ty, no t no co nt es t. Kl o pp im m edi at ely c o r r ec te d hi m se l fa nd cl ar i fi ed th atW ar d’ s pl eawas “ g ui l ty, ” an d s ta te d tha t he had explained the di ffer ence betw ee n t hat a nd no conte st to hi s cl i en t. W ar d, ho wev er, i m m edi at ely s po k e up a nd to l d th e co ur t th at he di d no t i n f ac t unde r st an d the differ ence between t h e tw o. The co urt then pro vi ded an e xp l a na t i o n t o W a r d, whi c h W a r d s t a t e d he u nd e r s t o o d. Fol low i ng thi s e xplanat i on, however, W ar d repeat ed hi s desi re to pl ead no conte st. Concl ud i ng that there was apparentl y no ag re em ent, the j ud g e b e g a n t o s c he dul e the c a s e f o rt r i a l

. Kl o pp in te rjec te d an d as ke d for a rec e s s in o rd er to ex p lain4 N o. 08

- 2809

Th e c ou r ta dm i t t e d the s t a t e ’ s pr op os e d r e s t i t ut i on, bu tg a ve 1 W ard thir ty day s to c hall enge the s tat e’ s prop osal

. N ei ther 

### (continued...) a nd c l a r i fy the de t a i l s o fthe p l e a ag r e e men twi th W a r d, w h ich th e c ou rtgra n te d . W ar d cla im s t h at d u rin g th is re c es s, K lop p p re ss u r e d h im to p lea d gu ilty . B ac k in c o u r ta ft e rth e r e c e s s , Wa r d i nd i c a t e d th a th e h a d c o me to unde r st an d the di ffer en ce b etwee n gui l tya nd no co nt es t, a nd e nt er ed a pl eao fgui l typur su an t to the agr eem ent. The cou rt acc epted the ple a a nd sche du l ed a s entencing hea ring. Fol l owing the pl ea hear i ng, but bef or e s entencing, W ar d as ke d for a n ew law ye r. K lop p w ith d re w as co u n se l, an d A tt or n ey G er ald O p ge n or th w as ap p oin te d in h is stead on Sep tem ber 1, 2004
. W ard clai m s tha t the r e a fter, h e re p ea te d ly in st ru c te d O p ge n or th to w ith d ra w h is gu i l ty ple a, but that Op geno rth i gnor ed hi s r equests
. A ccor ding to W ar d, Op geno rth w ent s o f aras to d raft a m ot ion to w i th d ra w th e p lea , bu t n ev er filed it. I t is th i s al l e g e d r e fu s a lt o w i th d r a w th e p l e a th a tf o r ms the b asi s o fW ar d’s habeas peti ti on be f or e thi s co urt. W i thhi s g ui l typlea sti l li n pl ac e, W ar d’ s se nt en cing hear i ng to ok pla ce o n Feb ruar y 1 1, 20 05 . W ard spoke at th e h ear i ng, but m ade no ind i cati on that he w anted to g o to tr i al i ns te ad o f pl ea di ng g ui l ty, no rdid he bring up a n y a l l e g e d r e q u e s t s t o O p g e n o r th t o mo v e to wi th

draw hi s pl ea. T h e c ou rtse ntenced W ar d to fi ve yea rs ’ i m pr i so nm en t an d nine y ea r s’ s upe r vi se d r el ea se a nd tenta ti vel y o rder ed re sti tuti on in the am ount o f$7 8, 000. 1N o. 08

- 2809 5



### (...continued) Op ge no rt h n or W ar d fi l ed a r eques tf or an othe r re s t i t ut i on he arin g , so th e cou rt ord ered W ard to p ay the $ 78 ,000 in re sti tu tio n th a t h a d b ee n p ro p o se d b y th e st a te
. W ar d sought postco nvi ction re l i eff ol l owing j ud gm ent. I n a pr o s e m o ti o n, W ar d r ai se d a ho sto fc l ai m s, i nc l udi ng a l l e g a t i o ns tha tb o th a t t o r ne y s Op g e no r th a nd Kl o pp re nd er ed i neffecti ve ass i sta nc e ofco unsel

. W i th r espect to Opg en orth, W ar d s ta te d tha t he was i ne ffec ti ve due to “[ t] he deni alo fdefendant’s co nti nued r equest to W IT H D R A W T H E P L E A . A tt or n ey O p ge n o r t h d id in f ac t ty ped [ si c] o ut defen dan t’ s m o ti o n to wi th dr aw the p lea, bu t insisted not to fol low throu gh w ith d efe n d a n t’s re quest t o w i thdraw the gui l ty ple a. ” W i th r espectto Kl o pp, W ar d a l l eg ed th athe “chang ed” W ar d’ s no conte st ple a without hi s co nsent, and that he waiv ed W ar d’ s ri gh t to a pr el i m i na r y he ar i ngwi th o uthi s co nsent. W ar d’s m oti on ci ted the S i xth and Four tee nth A m en d m en ts , St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U
. S. 668 (1984), and a num bero fst ate cas es i nvol vi ng ineffecti ve ass i stance ofco unselcl ai m s. W ar d request ed a M a ch nerhear i ng, an ev i denti ar y hea ring pro vi d ed u nd erW i sco nsi n l aw to prese rv e t ri alco unsel ’ s testi m ony w hen pursui ng an in effe c tiv e as sis ta n c e of c ou n se l cla im
. See Sta te v. M a ch ner, 28 5 N .W .2d 90 5, 90 8-0 9 (W is. 19 79 ); see also N o r t he r n v . Boatwr ight, 594 F.3d 555 , 559 (7th C ir. 2010). T he tri al court denie d al lof W ar d’s cl ai m s a nd deni ed a M a ch nerhear i ng. W ar d ap p ea led to th e W isc on sin C ou rto f A p p ea ls, ag ain a lle ging th at O p gen orth “d id n ot resp ect th e cli en t’s6 N o. 08

- 2809 deci si on t o w i thdraw the pl ea,” and ag ai n so ught a M a ch ner hear i ng to devel op evi dence i n supp or t of h is all egation s. T he cou rt of ap p eals also d en ied W ard ’s cl ai m s. I n i ts opi ni on, the cour t setfort h the St r i ck l and sta nd ar d, and stat ed “W ar d contends that .

. . Opgenor th provi ded i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unselbec ause [ he] faile d to req u es t a res tit u tio n h ea ri n g . W e rej ec t t h is cl ai m because , am ong othe r thi ngs, W ar d di d not a d equatel y ple ad i t in hi s pos tco nvi cti on m oti on. ” St at ev. Wa rd, 7 39 N .W
. 2d 490 ( W i s. Ct. A pp . 20 07) ( unp ubl i shed dispos i ti on)
. The a p pel l ate co urt did notdi re ctl y a dd re ss W ar d’ s cl ai m tha t O p g en o r thi g no r ed r eque st s to wi th

draw W ar d’s gui l ty ple a. W ar d s o ughtr ev i ew fr o m the W i sco nsi n Suprem e Cour t, ag ai n notin g th at he had bee n d e n i e d a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . T h e Wi s c o n s i n S u p r e me C ou rtd en ied rev iew
. Sta te v. Wa rd, 74 2 N
. W
. 2d 525 (W is. 2007) (table disp ositi on). H avi ng exhausted hi s sta te re m edi es, W ar d fi l ed a pr o se peti ti on fora w ri t o fhabea s co rpus i n the U ni ted S tat es Di st r i ctCo ur t f o r th e Eas te r n Di st r i ct o fW i sc o ns i n pur su ant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254. In the peti ti on, W ar d al l ege d m ult i ple i n st ances w here bo th Klo pp and Op geno rth pr o vi d ed i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns el, i nc l udi ng Opge no r th ’ s f ai l ur e to wi th dr aw W ar d’ s g ui l typl ea . The dist r i c tc o ur tde ni e d a l lo fWar d’ s c l a i ms, fi nd i ngtha t the s tat e co urt did notu n re asonabl y a pp l y St r i ck l and bec a us e War d d i d n o ta l l e g e tha th e wa s p r ej ud i ced by K l opp orOpgen or th’ s co nd uct. S ti l lact i ng pro se , W ar d app eal ed to thi s co urt. W e g ra nted a c er ti fi cate o f appeal abi l i ty and app oi nted counselto r epres ent hi m as to a s i ngl e i ssu e: w hetherOpgenor th r endered ineffec-N o. 08

- 2809 7 ti ve ass i sta nce o fco unselbyr efusi ng to fi l e a m oti on to w i thdraw W ar d’s gui l ty ple a.
II. A N A L Y S IS A . P roced u ral D efau lt Befo re re achi ng the m er i ts of W ar d’s peti ti on, w e fi rs t ad d re ss th e s ta te ’s a rg u m en t t h at W ar d p ro c ed u ra lly d e f a u l t e d h i s i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o fc o u n s e lc l a i m. W e r ev i ew a di st r i ctc o ur t’ s pr o ce dur alde f au l t r ul i ng d e n ov o. Ha dley v. Ho lm es , 3 41 F.3d 66 1, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). The proced u ra ldef aul t doct rine pre cl ud es federa l re vi ew o fa sta te cour t’ s h ab eas deci si on wh en the st ate co ur t’ s dec i si o n was ba se d o n ade qua te an d i nd epe nde nt sta te la w , orwh en the federa li ssue w as not f ai rl y pr esente d to the s tate co urts and thos e co urts would now h old th e c laim p ro c ed u ra lly b ar re d

. Colem a n v. Thom ps on , 501 U
. S. 72 2, 72 9 ( 1991 ) ; s ee also P erruqu et v. B riley, 39 0 F. 3d 505, 51 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. The doctr in e re quir es that petiti oner s f ai rl y pr ese nt the i r cl ai m s “ i n concr ete , p ra c tic al t er m s, [so th at ] th e s ta te co u rt[is] su fficie n tly ale rt ed to th e fe d er al c on st itu tio n al n at u re of th e is su e.” E lls w o rth v . Leven ha gen , 24 8 F
. 3d 634, 63 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( quoti ng Kurzawa v. Jor dan , 146 F.3d 435 , 442 (7t h C ir. 19 98 ) )
. To de te r m i ne whethe ra c o ns ti tuti o na li ss ue has be e n f a i r l y p r e s e nt e d, we c o ns i de rf o urf a c t o r s: “1) w hether the peti ti oner re l i ed on federa l cases t hat en ga ge in a co n st itu tio n al a n aly sis ; 2) w h et h er th e p et iti onerr el i ed on s tat e ca se s that a pp l y a co nsti tuti onal an a l y s i s t o s i mi l a rf a c t s ; 3 ) wh e the rthe p e t i ti oner8 N o. 08

- 2809 f r ame d th e c l a i m i n t e r ms s o p a r t i c u l a r a s t o c a l l t o min d a s p ec ific c on st itu tio n al rig h t; an d 4) w h et h er th e p et iti o ne ra l l eg ed a p attern o ff ac ts tha t i s wel lwi th i n the m ai nstr eam o fco nsti tuti onall i tig atio n. ” E ll sworth , 24 8 F. 3d at 639. In determ ini ng wh ethera cl ai m has been f ai r l y pr esent ed, we l ibe r al l y c o ns true pr o s e pet i ti o ns su c h as W ar d ’s. See Johnson v . H ule tt, 574 F
. 3d 428, 43 3 (7th C ir. 2009). T h e s ta te arg u es th at W ar d p ro c ed u ra lly d efa u lte d h is c laim be c au se h e fa iled to fairly p re se n t t h e W isc on sin cou r t s wi th a fe de r a li s s ue , a nd the s t a t e c o ur t s r ul ed ag ains t W ar d b as ed on ade qua te a nd inde pen den t state l aw groun d s. W e d isagree. A review of W ard ’s p ostconvi cti on m oti on be f or e the st ate co urt shows that he f ai rl y prese nted a federa l i ssue. W ar d c l ai m ed that Op geno rth prov i ded i neffecti ve ass i st an ce o fco unsel because he f ai l ed to w i thdraw hi s gui l ty ple a. W ar d ci ted th e Six th an d Fou rt ee n th A m e n d m en ts , St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , a nd a numbe ro fstate ca se s inv o l vingc o nst i t ut i o na l a na l y s i s . W hi l e W a r d’ s mot i o n di d not p rovide a highly de tailed fa ctu al basis for Op gen orth’s al l ege d defi ci ent c onduct ora prec ise acco unt ofhow that c on d uct prej ud i ced W ar d, i t a dequ ate l y c al l ed to m i nd a s pec i fi c co ns ti tu ti ona l r i g ht

— the S i xth Am e nd

m ent right to effecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel

— and al l ege d a patt er n offac ts t h at i s wel lwithi n the m ai nstr eam o f c o n st itu tio n al litig at ion of th at righ t. See P erruqu et, 39 0 F. 3d at 512 ( “W hatev erga ps ther e m ay be in [ defe nd ant’ s] p et itio n an d su p p o r t i n g m e m o r a n d u m , t h e ba sic ra tio n ale of [d efe n d an t’s ] d u e p ro c es s a rg u m en t is re adily di scernibl e. ”)
. W ar d’s cl ai m co ntai ns eno ughN o. 08

- 2809 9 detai lto have suffi ci ently al er ted the st ate co urt to h i s fe d e r a lc o n s t i t u t i o n a lc l a i m. Ofc o ur se , W ar d m us t pr es en t th e sa m e “ fac tu ala nd l eg alb as es ” to the fede r alc o ur t th athe pr es en te d t o the st at e c ou rt
. C urtis v . M o ntg o m ery, 55 2 F .3d 5 78 , 5 83 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. “ [ H ] y per te chni ca lc o ng r ue nc e be tw ee n the cl ai m s” m ade i n the federa la nd st ate f or a i s no t re q u ire d , ho w ev er , A nders on v. B enik, 47 1 F
. 3d 811, 81 4- 15 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ), an d a p et itio n e r m ay “re for m u lat e h is c l a i ms s o me wh a t, s o l o n ga s th e s u b s t a n c e o fh i s a r g um ent r em ai ns the sa m e.” Boyko v. Parke, 25 9 F
. 3d 781, 78 8 (7th C ir. 2001). W hile W ard ’s fed eral argu m e n t is m ore dev el o ped th ani t was b efo r e th e st at e co ur t ( as o ne w oul d expect with the b enefi t o f co unsel ) , the substa nce i s the sa m e: t hat Opgenor th i gnor ed re quests to m ove to w ith d ra w th e g u ilt y p lea

. Se ePic ar d v
. Conno r, 40 4 U
. S. 27 0, 27 7 ( 1971 ) ( hol ding that “var i ati ons in the l ega l theo ryo r f actualal l ega ti ons” ofa claim do notbar re vie w so lo n g a s t h e s u b st an c e o f th e fe d er al c laim rem ains th e sam e).

B . W he t he rWar d i s E nt i t l e d t o a n E v i de nt i a ryHe a ri ng W ar d s ee k s habe as c o r pus r el i efo n the b as i s th athe w as denie d effecti ve ass i sta nce o f c ounselwh en Op geno rth al l ege dlyr efu sed to m ove to withdraw W ar d ’s g u ilt y p lea . W ar d cla im s t h at h e re p ea te d ly ask ed Op geno rth to fi l e a m oti on to w ith draw the ple a pri or t o sente nci ng, but that Op geno rth i gnor ed thos e re quests. A ccor ding to W ar d, Op geno rth eve n w ent s o f ara s to ty pe up a m oti o n t o wi th dr aw the pl ea, b ut10 N o. 08

- 2809

neverfi l ed i t. W ar d claim s th at had Op geno rth heeded hi s r e q u e s t s , Wa r d wo u l d n o t h a v e p l e a d e d g u i l t y a nd w ou ld ins te ad h av e g on e t o t ria l. W e review W ard ’s habe as claim un d er the A nt iterrori sm and Effective D eath Pen alty A ct of 1996 (A E D PA ), 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 22 5 4
. T o b e e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e fu n d e rAE DP A, W ar d m ust dem onst ra te that the s ta te court deci si on denyi ng hi s cl ai m was ei ther“co ntra ryto , o r i nvol ved an unrea sonab l e a pp l i cati on o f, cl early est abl i shed F ede r all aw, a s det er m i ne d b y the S upr eme Co ur t of th e U ni ted S tat es. ” 2 8 U.S
. C. § 2 254( d )(1) ; see Jones v. Wallace, 525 F. 3d 500, 503 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. H er e, the federa l la w up on w hich W ard bases his clai m i s t ha t of St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on . St r i ck l and ’ s fa m i l i artwo- part tes t r equi re s a peti ti onerto dem onst ra te ( 1) thatcounsel ’ s per f or m ance f e ll be low “a n ob j ec tiv e s ta n d ar d of re as on ab len es s,” 46 6 U. S
. a t 68 8, a nd ( 2) a “r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i tytha t, b ut f o rc ou ns el ’ s unpr o fes si o na le r r o r s, the r es ul t o fthe proce edi ng would h ave bee n differ ent. ” Id. a t 69 4. To sat i sfy St r i ck l andin t h e c on te x t o f a g u i l t y p lea , a p et iti o ne rmustshow that“ co uns el ’ s adv i ce r eg ar di ngthe ple a was obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e a n d that there i s a re as on ab le p r o b a b ility th at bu t fo r c ou n se l’s e rro r, [p et iti oner] would nothave pl ed gui l ty, but w oul d have i nsi ste d up on a tr i al

. ” M oorev. Bryant, 34 8 F
. 3d 238, 24 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( ci ti ng H ill v. Lo ckha rt, 474 U
. S. 52, 59 ( 1985 ))
. W e a r e no t i n a po s i t i o n t o e v a l ua t e the mer i t s o f W ar d ’s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce cl ai m , bec ause the f acts r el ev an t t o W ar d’ s cl ai m hav e ne ve rbee n de ve l o ped. The c r e dib i l i t y o fWar d’ s al l e g a t i o ns h a v e n e v e rb e e n t e s t e d,N o. 08

- 2809 11

no rh a s the t e s t i mon y o fa t t o r ne y s Op g e no r th o rKl o pp ev er be en ob ta in ed

. Se eM at he ney v . Ande rs on , 2 53 F. 3d 1025 , 10 40 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( “A n adequate r eco rd i s i m perative to prop erly evalu ate ineffective ass ista nc e claim s.”) ; s e ealso Roe v. Fl ore s - O r t ega , 52 8 U.S
. 47 0, 47 7 ( 2000 ) ( re aso nabl en es s i nqui r y i s “c i r cumst an ce - spe ci fi c” )
. As the St r i ck l andco urt i tse l fh eld, co urts m ust “j ud ge the r easonab l eness o fco unsel ’ s chal l enged co nd uct o n th e f acts of the p articu lar case , view ed as of th e tim e o f cou ns el’ s conduct. ” 4 66 U
. S. at690 . H er e, we do not have these re q u isit e fa c ts . W ar d h as as se rt ed in h is § 22 54 p et iti on, under the penal ty ofperj ury, thatOpgen orth was un w il l i ngt o move t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui l typl ea . W ard soughtan e vi den tia ry hear i ng atev er y l eve lo fhi s s tat e postco nvi cti on pro ceedi ngs in or de r to att em pt to devel op ev i dence to pro ve thi s a sse rt i on, but th ose r equ ests w ere d en ied. N or w as he afforded an ev iden tiary he a r i ngi n the di s t r i c tc o ur tb e l o w. Gi v e n thi s p ost ure, our i nquir y is lim ited t o w hetherW ar d i s e nti tl ed to an evi denti ar y hear i ng to tr y and deve l op f act s that woul d s uppo r t hi s pet i ti o n. A ED PA go verns the avai l abi l i ty ofevi denti ar y hea rings on federa lhabea s r evi ew , and ge nera l l y b ar s them ex c ep t in n ar ro w ex c ep tio n s in ap p lic a b l e t o W ar d

. See28 U .S.C
. §§ 22 54 (e)(2 )(A ), (B ). B u t § 22 54 (e)(2 )’s b ar on ly appli es w hen the f ailure to devel op the f actualbas i s for a cla im is at tr ibu ta b le t o th e p et itio n er . Wi l l i a ms v . Tayl or, 52 9 U .S . 4 20, 435 ( 2000 ); D a vis v . Lam bert, 38 8 F
. 3d 1050 , 1059

- 60 ( 7th C ir. 2 004). H er e, i t i s thro ugh no f aul t o f W ar d that t h e f actualbas i s o fhi s cl ai m has not been devel oped. W ar d d i l i gently s ought a M a ch nerhear i ng at12 N o. 08

- 2809

eve ryst ep i n hi s s tat e c ou rtpro ceedi ngs, but thos e re quests w er e deni ed. S ecti on 2 254( e) ( 2) thus d oe s no t b ar an ev id en t i a r y h e ar in g for W ar d

. A llen v . B uss , 55 8 F. 3d 657, 66 4- 65 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) (§ 22 54( e) ( 2) does not bl ockev i denti ar y hea ring wh er e state co urt did not fu lly c on sid er ev id en c e p et itio n er h ad p u t fo rt h ); D avis , 388 F. 3d at 1060 ( § 2 254( e) ( 2) no barwh er e petitio ner w as “dil i gent in pursui ng hi s o pp or tuni ti es to devel op th e nec essary facts i n sta te cou rt. ”). W i th A ED PA p osi ng no bar, W ar d i s e nti tl ed to an evi de n tia ry hear i ng in federa lco urt i f( 1) he ha s a l l ege d f acts wh i ch, i fpro ve d, w oul d enti tl e hi m to habea s r el i ef an d (2) th e sta te c ou rt s, for re as on s be yo n d h is c o n t r ol, neverco nsi dered hi s cl ai m i n a fulland f ai r hear i ng. D avis , 3 8 8 F
. 3 d a t1 061 ; M a then ey v . An derso n, 253 F. 3d 10 25, 10 39 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. Fo r the r eas ons expla i ned bel ow, w e fi nd thatW ard h as sati sfi ed these r equi re m en ts . W ar d h as alleg ed fac ts w h i c h if p ro ve n w ou ld enti tl e hi m to habea s r el i efo n hi s ineffecti ve ass i st an ce ofco unselcl ai m , and despit e hi s eff or ts, the sta te cour ts neverco nsi dered the cl ai m i n a fulland f ai r hear i ng.

1. W ard H as A ll eged Fac ts W h ich , If P roved ,W ou ld Enti t l e Him t o Reli ef W ar d al l ege s th at he i nstr ucted Op geno rth to fi l e a m oti on t o w i thdraw his gui l ty ple a, but that Op geno rth disr ega rded these inst ructi ons. I fi t i s t rue that Op geno rth re fused to fi l e a m oti on t o w i thdraw W ar d’s ple a despi te a di r e c t i ns t r uc t i o n tha t he do s o , hi s pe r f o r man c e was con stitu t ionall y i ne ffective u nd er St r i ck l and
. S uchc o n-N o. 08

- 2809 13 du ct woul d fa l lbel ow St rick l and ’s obj ective stan d ard of reason ablen ess, an d it p rej ud iced W ard bec au se t he re w as at l eas t a r ea sonabl e pr obab i l i ty that such a m oti on wo ul d h a v e s uc c e e de d.

a. D ef i ci ency A s t h e s ta te co n c ed ed ato ra l arg u m en t, if O p ge n or th d id i nd eed r efuse t o heed a direc t r equest, thi s co nd uct was d efic ien t. T h e d ec isio n w h et h e r o r n otto p lea d gu ilty is a maj o ro ne tha tr e s t s u l t i mat e l y wi th the c l i e nt, a nd a l aw yerwh o disr ega rds s peci fi c instr ucti ons as to such a d ec isio n ac ts u n re as on ab ly. Se eFl or i da v
. N ixon , 54 3 U
. S. 175, 18 7 ( 2004 ) ( defe nd ant has “ul ti m ate autho ri ty” o ve rde ci si o ns i nv o l vingfunda m en ta lt r i alde ci si o ns in c luding w hetherto pl ead gui l ty ( quoti ng Jo n e s v. B a rnes , 463 U .S. 74 5, 75 1 (1 98 3)); Wallacev. D avis , 3 62 F. 3d 914, 92 0 ( 7th Ci r. 2 004) ( “[ m ] any deci si ons du ring tr i al fall to co u n se l by d efa u lt o r b y v irt u e o f su p er ior k n ow ledge, bu t the m aj oro nes . . . m ay be e xerci sed per sonal l y, i fthe accused wants to m ake r atherthan del ega te these vit al c h oic es ”); cf. F l o re s - Or t ega , 5 28 U
. S. at47 7 ( l aw yer w ho di sr ega rds s peci fi c instr ucti ons to fi l e a n oti ce o f appe ala ct s unr ea so nabl y )
. I f, o n the o th erha nd, i t tu r ns o uttha t Opge no r ths tr ong ly adv i se d W ar d no t to wi th

draw the ple a a s a st ra teg i c m att er, but did not di sr eg ar d a ny di r ec t, une qui vo ca li ns truct i o ns , hi s co nd u c t m ay w ell h av e b e e n rea so n ab le, p ar tic u lar ly in li gh t of St r i ck l and ’s “strong p resu m p tion t h at cou ns el’ s con du c tf a l l s wi thin the wi de r a ng e o fr e a s o nab l e p r o fessio n al a ss ist an c e.” 46 6 U .S. at 6 89 ; see also Brown v. Fi nna n ,14 N o. 08

- 2809 598 F. 3d 416, 42 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. The ci rcum sta nces of w hat e xa c tly tr anspi re d between W ar d and O pgenor th w i l lbe a dete rm in ati on forthe dist ri ct c ourtto m ake w ith th e b en efitof an ev id en tia ry h ea rin g a t w h ich cr ed ib ility d et er m in at ion s c an be m ad e. See Flo res-O r t eg a , 528 U .S. at 4 77 ; M a then ey, 25 3 F
. 3d at 1040
.
b. Pre j ud i ce A ssum i ng tha t W ar d’s al l ega ti ons ar e t rue and that Op geno rth’s p er f or m ance w as obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e, W ar d m ust a l so dem onst ra te that the r efusalto fi l e a mo t i o n t o w i th d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a p r ej u d i c e d h i m. Stric kl and, 46 6 U.S
. at69 4. To dem onst ra te prej ud i ce, W ar d w ou ld h ave to show that ( 1) ther e was r easo n ab le p ro b ab ility th at, bu t fo r c ou n se l’s e rro rs , he w ou ld no t h a v e p l e d g u i l t y a n d wo u l d h a v e i n s i s t e d o n g o i ng to tr i aland ( 2) th er e w as a r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty that the c ourtwould have gr anted h is m oti on t o w i thdraw hi s guil ty ple a. H il l , 474 U .S. at 5 9; M o o re, 34 8 F.3d at 241
. W e fi nd thatW ar d has sa ti sfi ed these r equi re m ents. As to H ill ’s fi r str equi r ement, W ar d c o nt en ds th athe woul d ha ve g o ne t o t r i alb utf or O p gen o r th ’ s ac ti o ns be ca us e he ha d a v i ab l e defen se a g ains t th e ch ar ges he f aced. W ar d cl ai m s that a l though he m ay have tak en c u st om er m o n ey w ith ou t p er for m in g a n y s er vic es in re turn, he ne veri ntended to kee p the m oneyand al w ays m eant to eve ntual l y c om ple te the work . H e argues that the gov er nm ent ther ef or e coul d no t have prove n intent, a necess ar y el em ent f or a vi ol ati on of the theft byco ntra ctor law

. W i s. S ta t. § 9 43
. 20 ( 1) ( b)

. W e ne ed no t as se ss theN o. 08

- 2809 15

T ha t said , the cred ib ility of W ard ’ s claim tha t he w ished to 2 go t o t ri al i s unde rc utby the f ac tthathe m ade no s uc h a s s er t i on i n s t a t e c ou r ta ta t i m e whe n on e m i gh th a ve e x pe c t e d h i m t o do so. W ard w as afford ed an op p or tu nity to sp eak d u ring his s en t en c i ng h ea ri ng, an d atno t i m e duri ng hi s st at em en t s di d he 

### (continued...) l i k ely s ucc es s o fs ucha d efense ; W ar d’ s cl ai m tha t he w ou ld h av e in sis te d on goin g t o t ria l to p u rs u e itis en o ugh a t th i s j un ctu re to s at i sfy the fi r stpr o ngo fthe p rej u d ice an aly sis
. SeeH il l, 474 U .S. at 5 9; s e eal s o Ho lt an v. P arrat t, 68 3 F
. 2d 1163 , 11 70 ( 8th Ci r. 19 82) (pr ej ud i ce w here at torney f ai l ed to ac t o n defe nd ant’ s r equest to w ith d ra w a n olo co n te n d re p lea ); cf
. C a stella no s v. U nited S t a tes , 2 6 F
. 3d 71 7 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( pr ej udi ce where l aw yerf ai l ed to car ryo ut cl i ent’ s instr ucti on to fi l e a n ap p eal regardless of cha nc es of succ ess). The di st r i ct co ur t co nc l ude d th at W ar d di d no t d em o nst r at e pr ej udi ce b ec ause he ne ve ra ctua l l y a l l eg ed th athe w oul d have g one to t ria lbut f orOpgenor th’ s a l l ege d er ro rs . W e d i s a g r ee w ith th is in te rp re ta tio n . W h ile it is tr u e th at W ar d’s § 2 254 peti ti on does notexpl i ci tl y s tat e th athe woul d ha ve i ns i st ed o n g o i ngt o t r i al, tha t to us i s th e cl ea ri m po r t o fhi s cl ai m tha t he wi sh ed to wi th

dr aw hi s g ui l typl ea . The na tu r alr es ul t o fa p l eawi th

draw alwould have been to f ace tr i alo n the charg es instea d ( an d w ith th e be n efi t of cou ns el on ap p eal, W ard m akes th e po int ex p li citly)

. Th is int erp r e tation is pa rticul ar l y a pp ro pri ate i n l i ght o fo ur obl i gat i on t o l iber ally c on st ru e p ro se su b m iss ion s like W a r d ’ s. See, e.g., M cG ee v. Bar t ow , 593 F.3d 556 , 566-67 (7th C ir. 2010). 216 N o. 08

- 2809



### (...continued) expres s a d es ir e to go to t ri al or m ake any referenc e t o a re fusal by Opgeno rth t o wi thdra w hi s pl ea . A di s t ri c t c ourtne ed n ot hol d an evi dent i ar y he ar i ng w he n “ the r ec or d re fut es the a ppl i cant’ s f actual al le gati ons. ” Schri ro v. Landrigan , 55 0 U .S. 465, 4 7 4 (20 0 7 ) ( St r i ck l a nd claim tha t cou nsel f a i l ed to inv estiga te m it igat ing evid en ce w as refuted by rec ord show ing that p et iti o n e r h a d in str u ct ed co u n se l n o t to d o so ); seeal so Tott en v . M er k le, 137 F. 3d 1172, 1176 ( 9th Cir

. 199 8 ) ( no evidentiar y heari ng neces sar y w here peti ti oner’ s ass ert ion “fli es i n the f ace of l og i c i n l i gh t of

. . . [ f a c t s ] e a s i l y di s c e r nibl e fr om the rec o r d .” ). T h e st a t e d o e s n o ta r g u e , h o w e v e r , th a tW a r d ’s f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s a r e r e fu t e d b y th e r e c o r d, a n d wh i l e we harbor s om e doubt s abo utW ar d’ s abi l i t y t o pr ove hi s as s er t i on, w e do n o t d is cer n anything i n the rec ord that dir ect ly c ontrad ic ts hi s cl a im so a s to p re cl u d e an ev id e n t i a r y h ea ri n g . C f. S chriro , 55 0 U .S. at 476 ( se ntencin g co llo q u y “p la in ly in d ic a te [d ]” thatpe t i t i one r had i ns t ru c t ed c ouns el not t o pre s en tm i t i gat i ng evidence, contradict ing cl aim on habeas re view thatcounsel h a d u n re a so n a b ly fai le d to d o so ). H il l ’ s s eco nd r equi re m ent is a r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty that the sta te cour t would have gr anted a m oti on t o w i thdraw his gui l ty ple a had o ne be en fi l ed. 474 U.S
. at59
. I n W i sco nsi n, a defe nd ant wil lbe p er m i tte d to w i thdraw hi s ple a pri or to sente nci ng i f ther e i s a “f ai r an d j u st” re aso n f ordoi ng so , and the pros ecuti on wil ln ot be “g re at ly p rej u d ice d ” b y th e w i t h d r aw al. Sta te v. B a rney, 57 0 N
. W
. 2d 73 1, 7 35 ( W i s. Ct
. App. 1 99 7)
. The stat e co nceded at or alarg u m ent that i t would nothave bee n pr ej udi ce d b y a wi th dr aw al of W ar d’ s g ui l typl ea, s o o ur i nquir y turns s ol el y o n w h ether a f ai r and j ust r eas onN o. 08

- 2809 17

ex ist s fo r w ith d ra w al u n d e r W isc on sin law . W isc on sin c ou rt s h av e “ c on sis te n tly art icu lat ed a libe ra l ru le ” in deter m i ni ng w h at const i tutes a f ai r and j ust r eas on t o w ith d ra w a p lea

. St at ev. Je nki ns , 7 36 N
. W
. 2d 24, 33

- 35 (W is. 20 07 ); see also Statev. Ga rc ia , 53 2 N
. W
. 2d 111, 11 7 ( W i s. 1 995) ( “c o nfus i o n i s a f ai ra nd j us t r ea so n fo rwi th

d ra w al” ); St at ev. M anke, 60 2 N
. W
. 2d 139 , 14 4 ( W i s. Ct. Ap p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( g r a n t i n gp l e a wi th d r a wa lwh e r e d e fe nda nt “mi su nde r stood hi s pl eaa nd r ec ei ve d m i sl ea di ng ad vice from his attorne ys”). W ar d asse rt s that hi s co nfusi on during h i s pl ea hear i ng co nsti tutes a f ai r and j ust r eas on t o w i thdraw the pl ea. A r evie w o fthe ple a hea ring tr anscr i pt does cre ate the im p re ssi on that W ar d m ay have been confused about the ple a he enter ed. Even after th e j ud ge expla i ned th e differ ence between a no co ntestand gui l ty p lea to W ard , he con tin u e d t o exp ress con fusion. W ard fur th er c onte nds tha t Kl o pp di d no t r es o l ve hi s co nfusi on duri ng the r eces s that fol l owed , but i nstea d p re ss u re d h im to en te r th e g u ilty p lea . Th at sa id , W ar d d id ev en tu al l y i ndi ca te t o the c o ur t th athe unde r st o o d the differ ence betw ee n a guil ty and no co ntestpl ea, and that he wished t o ple ad gui l ty. W e n ee d n otd ec id e w h et h er W a r d ’ s as se rt ion s d efin iti vel y c onst i tute a “ fair and j ust” basi s forwithdrawal o f hi s pl ea; we need onl y dete rm in e w hetherther e was a re aso nabl e pr obab i l i ty that a W isc onsin cour t would s o c on c lu d e. H il l , 474 U .S. at 5 9; see also Julia n v . B a rtley, 49 5 F. 3d 48 7, 49 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “[ t] he chances o fprej ud i ce need onl y b e be tte r than negligib le. ”)
. Giv en the br oad18 N o. 08

- 2809 di sc r et i o n W i sc o ns i n c o urts hav e i n thi s ar ea, we fi nd th at th ere is a re ason able prob abili ty th at th e trialcou rt w oul d have found that th er e was f ai r and j ust r eas on to p er m it W ar d to w ith d ra w h is p lea

. See Jenk ins , 73 6 N .W .2d at33 ; se e also Garcia , 532 N
. W
. 2d at 117 ( “co nfusi on is a fai r and j us t reason f or w ithd raw al”).

2. T h e S tate Cou rt s N ever Con s id ered W ard’s Cl a i m i n aF ul l a nd Fa i rHe a r i ng To be enti tl ed to an evi denti ar y hearing, W ar d m ust a l so d em on s t ra te th at th e s ta te co u rt s, for rea so n s b ey on d h is c on tr ol, n ev er co n sid er ed h is c l a i m i n a fu ll an d fair h ea rin g. D avis , 38 8 F
. 3d at 1061
. I t i s cl ea r th at the sta te co ur ts di d not con si derW ar d’ s cl ai m r eg ar di ng Op geno rth i n any fulland f ai r hear i ng. A s w e hav e al re ady di scu ssed, W ar d request ed a M a ch nerhear i ng at ev ery st ep i n hi s st at e pr o ce eding s i n o r dert o de ve l o p the fa c t ua l bas is for his assertions, butthose requ ests w ere d en ied

. Se ei d. ; Jo nes, 525 F. 3d at 503 (p et i ti onernotat f aul t forf ai l i ng to devel op f actualr eco rd w h en st ate cou rts refused his requ est for evi d en tiary hear ing). W ard has s ati sfi ed thi s r equi re m ent.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W ar d i s en ti tl ed to a n e vi den ti ary he ar i ngr eg ar d in g hi s cl ai m thatOpgenor th r endered ineffective a ssi sta nce ofco unselbyr efu sin g to fi l e a m oti on t o w i thdraw W ar d’s gui l ty ple a. T h e ca se i s R EMAND ED to the dist ri ctN o. 08

- 2809 19

W e no te the p ote ntia l im p lication s of th e r e l ief W ard seek s. 3 W ard ha s alrea d y serv ed the cu stod ial sente nc e set f or th in his p lea a g r e e m en t an d is cu rren tly o n su p erv ised release

. If it is f ound thatW ard is ent it le d to federa l hab eas rel ie f, W ard c oul d ge te xa c t l y whathe s ee ks

— wi th d r a wa l o fh i s p l e a a nd a t ri al i ns t ea d. The s t at e c oul d co nc ei vabl y r ei ns t at e al l o f the charges against him , incl ud ing thos e that had be en d ropp ed pu rs uant to the plea agreem ent, ex posing W ard to f ar m ore potenti al pris on ti m e. Asked at oral argum ent w hether W ard w is hed to proceed in l ight ofthi s ri sk, counselrepres ente d that he di d. St i l l c onc er ne d aboutwhethe r W ar d t ru l y unde rs t ood the potenti al im plic ati ons ofthe rel ie fhe s ee k s, w e i nst ructe d cou nsel to ag ain con fer w ith W ard , an d ifh e s t ill w ished to proceed, to fi le a st atem ent of int ent so i nd ic ati ng. Co unsel fil ed a n o t i c e r e i t e r a t i n g W a r d’ s “ de s i r e a n d i n t e n t ” t o p u r s u e t he ap p eal sh or tly th er e after, and so w e the refore p ro ceed w ith disposi ti on of the cas e.

7- 23- 10 cou rt w ith instru ctions to p roceed w ith an eviden tiary he ar i ngc o ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n. 3