## 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. 07

- 3700 P AULC . W OZ NY, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. G REG O RYG RA MS, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 05- C- 739

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Chief Ju dge

.

____________ A RG UE D M AY 8, 2008

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 21, 2008

____________
Befo re C OFFEY, R IPPLE, a nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . C OFFEY, Cir cu i tJudg e . On M ar ch6 , 2 00 2, Pa ulW o zn y w as c ha r g e d wi th a nd e nt e r e d a p l e a o fn o c o nt e s tto th r ee s ex ua l o ff en se s i nv o l vingc hi l dr ena nd was s en tence d to a t er m o f25 ye ar s’ im p ri sonm ent a nd 45 ye ar s’ extended supervi si on i n a s tat e co urt proce edi n g. A fter ex ha us tinghi s state r emedi es , W o zn y pe ti ti o ne d the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Co u rtf orthe Easter n Dis tr i ct o f W i s c o ns i n f o r a wr i to fhab e a s c o r pu s u nd e r 2 8 U. S

. C.2 N o. 07

- 3700 § 2 254, ar gui ng tha t hi s pl eas should have bee n vaca ted b ec au se th ey w er e no t kn ow in gly , vo lu n ta rily, an d int elligen tly entered

. Be cau se th e d istri ct cou rt correctly de term i ned that the s tat e co urt re aso nabl y ap p l i ed federa l l a w, w e a ffi r m.

B a c kg r o und InSep te m b er 20 01 , th re e y ou n g c h ild re n (all ag e 1 2) t old detect i ves f ro m the W al w or th County, W i sco nsi n, pol i ce departm ent that W ozny h ad se xually a ssa ult ed them on m ult i ple o ccasi on s duri ng ca m ping tr i ps. A s a r esul t, W ozny was ar re ste d and charg ed w i th ni ne se xual offenses i n W al wor thc o unty . I n Mar ch2 00 2, W o zn y p le ade d no conte st to one count ofh avi ng se xual conta ct with a per son und erthi rt een, o ne co unt ofcau si ng a chi l d to expose a se x o r g an, a nd o ne c o unto fha vings ex ua l c o nt act w i tha perso n und erag e thi rt een o n at l eas t three o ccasi ons. W ozny ’ s pl ea agr eem ent pr ov id ed thatse ven unchar ged o ffen se s f r o m J effer so n c o unty woul d b e di smi ss ed an d the m att er s ba rr ed fro m further pros ecuti on pro vi ded th at th e o ffe n s e s we r e r e a d i n t o th e c o u r t r e c o r d a nd co ns i der ed ats en te nc i ng . W ozn y e nt er ed pl ea s o fno conte st and, as here tofor e s tat ed, w as sente nced to tw entyfi ve yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent. T her e mainingcha r g e s were re ad i nto the r eco rd, co nsi dered bythe c ou rt , and l ate r dismi s s e d. A t W ozny ’ s pl ea hear i ng, the cour t r evi ew ed the cri m es c ha r g e d a nd e xp l a i ne d t o hi m the r i g ht s h e wa s g i v i ngu p. The j ud ge the n a sk ed W o zn y ’ s tr i alc o uns elwhethe r the charg es f ro m J effer son county w er e t o be r ead i n. CounselN o. 07

- 3700 3

re p lied , “T h ey are to be d ism iss ed an d rea d -in, cor re c t.” The j ud ge then ask ed W ozny i fthatwas hi s underst anding, to whi chhe r epl ie d, “ Ye s, s i r . ” The j udg e al so a sk ed th e defen dan t i fhe unde r st o o d tha t “I a m no t bo und b y a ny pr o m i se s or th reat s an y o ne may ha ve made to y o u?” the defe nd ant r epl i ed, “Iu n d er sta nd

. ” The j ud ge then r ead the c harg es i nto the r eco rd and W ozny ente re d a pl ea of no c o nt e s t
. J ud g e Gib b s the n s t a t e d: B y e n te rin g y ou r p lea s, yo u ’re giv in g u p ce rt ain Const i t ut i o na l r i g ht s ; the s e i nc l ud e y o ur r i g ht t o a tr i al, the ri ght t o re m ai n si l ent a nd understa nd that y o urs i l en ce c anno t be us ed ag ains t y o u a t tr i al, the r i g htt o t es ti fy a nd pr es en t ev i den ce a t trial , the r i g ht to use s ubpoenas a n d requi re witnes ses to co m e t o cou rt and testify for you , the right to a j ury tri al w he re al l t wel ve j ur o r s woul d ha ve to a g r ee una ni m o us l y, the r i g htt o c o nfr o ntthe wi tn es se s ag ains t y o u a nd the r i gh t t o ma k e th e S t a t e p r o v e y o u g u i l t y b e y o nd a reason ab le d ou bt; do you un d erstan d that you’re gi vi ng up thos e r i ghts? To this q u es ti on W ozny r epl i ed, “Ido. ” The j ud ge then ask ed the defe nd ant, “Di d you s i gn [ the pl ea agr eem ent] afteryo u re ad and und er sto od eve ry thi ng i n thi s f orm ?” W ozny answered, “Yes, s ir. ” The j ud ge ask ed, “Do y ou ha v e a ny q ue s t i o ns o fme , ” t o wh i c h W o z nya ns we r e d, “N o.” T h e jud ge th en asked M r. De La Rosa , W ozn y’s att or ney, “Are y ou sa ti sfi ed yo ur cl i ent fre el y, wil l i ngl y, and vol untari l y e nter s hi s pl ea?” M r. De La Rosa r esponded , “Yes. ” The j ud ge ask ed, ” W i l l yo ur [ si c] st i pu l ate that the c om pla i nt se ts fo rth a s uffi ci ent f actualbas i s f or4 N o. 07

- 3700 fi ndi ng s o fg ui l t? ” M r . De La R osa a ns wer ed, “ S o s ti pul ate d.” The j ud ge then s tat ed On this rec or d , Iwil l fi nd thatthe defe nd ant fre el y, w i l l i ngl y, and vol untari l y e nter s his p l ea. I’ l l fi nd that a f ac tu alb as es [ si c] e xi st s, a nd I ’l l adj udg e th e defen d an t gu ilty of cou n ts 2, 4 a n d 7. I’lld ism iss an d rea d -in the r em ai ni ng co unts i n 01- CF-3 94 [ sta te cour t ca se num ber ] , and awaita re ad-i n l i st orwh ate verchar ges wer e to b e r ea d- i n. To deter m i n e the e xact s equence o fev ents that too k p l a c e a tth e s e n t e n c i n gh e a r i n go fApr i l 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 , we r ev i ew the o ffi ci alc o ur t tr an scri p t f r o m W o zn y ’ s se nte n ci nghe ar i ng . Dur i ngthe he ar i ng, J udg e Gibb s, r efer r i ng to the c ri m es bef or e hi m , st ate d “[ d]i sm i sse d and read -in a r e t wo c o un t s o fF i r s t
- De g r e e S e xu a l As s a ul to fa Ch i l d, f o urc o unt s o fCa us i nga Chi l d t o Expo se a S ex Or g an . T h e r e w e re ot h er se x u al a ss au lts w h ich to ok p lac e in Jefferson Cou nt y, an d those , ah, are to be con side red here to d ay . I th in k t h ey ’v e b ee n d ism iss ed in Je ffer so n C ou n ty .” H e no ted thatW ozny h ad “ass aul ted se ver albo ys seve r a l t i mes . ” J ud g e Gib b s a l s o c o ns i de r e d the f a ct that these as saul ts had take n pla ce overa tw o yea r peri od and that W ozny go t the chi l dren notto te l l anyb od y b y “tak i ng the m p lac es and buyi ng the m thi ngs. ” The j ud ge note d that W ozny had used hi s pos i ti on o ftr ust a s a Boy S co u tl e a d e r t o “ ma n i p u l a t e th e b o y s a n d s a t i s fy h i s o wn desi re s. ” The j ud ge al so note d that W ozny f ai l ed to ta ke r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r hi s ac ti o ns f o ll ow ing hi s ar r es t. The j ud g e spe ci fi ca l l y no te d tha t W o zn y ha d l i ed th r o ug ho ut the e nti re pro cess and that the d efendant cl ai m ed thatN o. 07

- 3700 5 the b oys f abr i cate d the s tor y. J ud ge Gibbs al so too k no ti ce tha t th i s was o ng o i ng, s er i al( m ul ti pl e) c o nduc t. The j ud ge w as deeplytr oubl ed by the w ay W ozny had w or m ed hi s way i nto the v i cti m s’ f am i lies a n d how he had tak en a dv a nt a g e o ftha tr e l a t i o ns hi p. On F eb r ua r y 1 1, 2 00 3, nearl y t enmonths a fte r s en tenci ng, W ozny, r epres ented bysubst i tute counsel, m ove d t o wi thd r a w h i s p l e a s o fn o c o nt e s t
. He the n c l a i med , co nt r ar y to th e co ur t r ec o r d, th at at th e ti m e o fs en te nc i ng he di d no t unde r st an d th e el ement s o f th e o ffen ses and th athi s pl ea s wer e, the r efo r e, no t k no wi ng l ya nd v o l untaril y m ad e. W ozn y also al leged that th e trialcou rt f ailed to i nfo rm hi m thati t was notbo und by the ple a ag re em en t. A d d itio n ally , W o zn y a tt ac ke d th e re ad in g-in ofthe re m ai ni ng char ges . The tr i alco urt hel d a hear i ng o n W ozny ’ s pos tco nvi cti on m oti on. Duri ng tha t hea ri ng, W ozny te sti fi ed that hi s t ri al c o un s e l u r g e d h i m t o p l ead bec a us e h e fe l th e h a d a “h op eless case . . . a n d w ou ld go to prison f or a very l o ngt i m e. ” Acco r di ngt o the de fen dan t’ s ve r si o n ofthe pl eaq ue stions, he no w st at es tha t he di d no t r ea d the ple a a gr eem ent b ef or e s i gni ng i t a nd co unsel neve r discussed t h e el em ents ofthe offenses with hi m i n spi te of hi s st at ement s to the c o nt r ar y at t he pl ea he ar i ng . W o zn y al so c l ai m ed i g no r an ce o fthe c o ns eq ue nc es o fpl ea di ng no co ntest
. Du ri ng cr oss - exam i nati on a t the post convi cti on m oti on hear i ng, the dist ri ct a tto rneyrea d fr om the tr anscr i pt of W ozny ’ s pl ea hear i ng. A t that hea ri ng the j ud ge ask ed W o zn y, “ Do y o u under st an d tha t Ia m no t bo und b y a ny6 N o. 07

- 3700 prom i ses o r thre ats anyon e m ay have m ade to yo u, ” t o w h i c h W oz n y re p lied , “I un d er st an d .” W oz n y a c kn ow ledged thathe m ad e the st ate m ent, but m ai ntai ned that he di d not underst and that thi s m ea n t the j ud ge w as not bo und bythe pl ea a g r ee m en t. Dur i ngthe pl ea he ar i ngthe j udg e al so a sked, “D i d [ co uns el ] e xpl ain t o y o u a l l the el em ents ofea c h o f t h es e offenses . . . [ and] a re yo u sat i sfied th at th e s ta te co u ld p ro ve th os e b ey on d a re as on ab le do ubt ?” W o zn y r epl i ed, “ Ye s, s i r . ” But d ur i ngthe postco nvi cti on h ear i ng W ozny co ntra dict ed that ple a hear i ng te sti m ony, st at ing i nstea d that he r eal l y had not und er sto od and that his la w yeri nstr ucted hi m to si m plya gr ee with a nythi ng the co urt ask ed. W ozny al so acknow l edged thathe ha d not pro cl ai m ed hi s innocence a t s e nt e nc i ng a nd , i ns t e a d, ha d a c t ua l l y a po l o g i zed to the v i cti m s. Final l y, the sta te prese nted the postco nvi cti on c o ur twi th a c o pyo fWo z ny ’ s s i g ne d p l e a a g r e e ment, w hich sp ecifi ed that W o zn y had review ed and un d ersto od the enti re docum ent. W o zn y ’ s tr i alc ou nse l a l so t es ti fi ed dur i ngthe postco nvi cti on hea ri ng. A ccor ding to counsel ’ s t est i m ony, W o zn y was mor e i ntell ige nta nd e duca te d tha n the a v e r a g e c r i mi na l de fe nd a nt
. Al tho ugh c o un s e l c o ul d no t re m em berwh etherhe ha d rea d the e n tir e plea ag re emen tt o Wo z ny“ wo r d- f o r - wo r d, ” c o un s e l r e member ed conve yi ng the subst ance ofthe agr eem ent t o hi m . Counsel al so sta ted thathe di scusse d the elem ents ofea ch offense wi th Wo z n y a n d s t a t e d t h a tWo z n y h a d u n d e r s t o o d th e m. T h e p o stcon viction j ud ge bega n by stating th at “[t]here w as som e confusi on at the top about w hether there w asN o. 07

- 3700 7 going to be a r ead- i n orw h ether i t was go i ng to be an o u t r igh t d ism issal. ” Jud ge G ibbs con tinu ed , stating “it’s ne v e r e v e n c r o s s e d my mi nd t o p un i s h s o meo ne f o r a r e a di n fro m so m ethi ng o n an o ut- of

- coun ty char ge, and that cer tai nl y wasn’tthe case her e. ” N ext, the court r eco unted ha vinga dvi se d W o zn y tha t i t was no t bo und by a ny prom i ses , incl ud i ng those setfor th i n the ple a a gr eem ent. The cour t al so obs er ved that W ozny co uld not“have bee n bli nd side d ” by t he sent en ce bec au se it w as tw en ty years b e l o w wha tthe s t a t e h a d a s k e d fo r . T he co ur tma de cl ea r tha t i t fel t th atW o zn y was a n i nt el l i g en t m ana nd m ade no t e th a th e h a d n e g o t i a t e d d o wn wa r d wi th t he pr o se cut o r a nd r ec ei ve d the b en efi t byr educingthe po te nt i als en te nc e fro m 3 00 y ea r s to 1 50 y ea r s. The st at e as k ed f o r a fur th err edu ct i o n t o f o rty- fi ve y ea r s an d W o z nyr e c e i v e d o nl y t we nty - fi v e y e a r s o fc o nfi ne ment. A dd i ti onal l y, the cour t e xp lain ed that i t was notnece ssar y to go i n depth about the e l em ents that W ozny pl eaded to because i t had r ecei ved as sura nces f rom b ot h co unsel a n d th e d e fe n d a n tth a th e , Wo z ny , un d e r s t o o d th e m. F i na l l y, th e co ur t no te d W o zn y ’ s pr o fes se d unde r st an di ng o fe ac h i ndi vi dualr i g hthe wai ve d b y p le adingno c o nte st
. The co ur t co nc l ude d tha t W o zn y ha d k no wi ng l y a nd vol untari l y e nter ed hi s pl eas , and therefor e deni ed hi s m oti on to w i thdraw them

. The W i sco nsi n Court of Appeal s al so de ni ed th e po st co nv i ct i o n mot i o n, a nd the S u p r e me C o u r to fWi s c o n s i n d e n i e d r e v i e w. W o zn y ne xtfi l ed a pet i ti o n f o r a wri t o fhab ea s co r pus u n d er 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254, ag ai n dis pu ti ng the vo l untariness ofhi s pl eas , bu t als o c l ai m i ng tha t hi s t ri alco unsel had r en der ed i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce . The d is tr i ctc o ur t co n-8 N o. 07

- 3700 cl ud ed that W ozny had proc edu ra lly defa ult ed hi s a tta ck on counsel

. I t then deter m i ned that the sta te c ou rt s’ deci si on denyi ng co l lat eralr el i efo n the vol untariness of W o zn y ’ s pl ea s was no t o bj ec ti ve l y unr ea so nabl e. The d istri ct court d en ied his p etition, bu t certifi e d W ozn y’s at ta c k on h is p lea s fo r ap p ea l.

A n alysis W o zn y, a tt empti ngto c overa l l b as es , c o nt en ds th athe di d no t k no wi ng l y a nd v o l unt ar i l y pl ea d no c o nt es t to the cr i m i na l c ha r g es a nd, thus , tha t he was depr i ve d o fdue p ro c e s s . Th e Sup rem e C ou rt has noted that a plea “op erat es as a w a i v e r of im p or ta n t rig h ts , an d is va lid on ly if done vol untari l y, knowingl y, and intel l i gentl y, ‘w ith su ffi ci en t awar en es s o fthe r el ev an t ci r cumst an ce s an d l i kel y c onse quences. ’ ” Brad s haw v. St um pf , 54 5 U.S

. 17 5, 18 3 ( 2005 ) ( quoti ng B rad y v . U nited Sta tes , 39 7 U.S

. 74 2, 74 8 ( 1970 ) )

. The Courthas al so note d that the vo l untariness ofa ple a “ can be deter m i ned on ly b y consi deri ng al l o f the r e l e v a ntc i r c ums t a nc e s s ur r o un di ngi t. ” Brady, 39 7 U .S. at 7 49 ; see also U nited Sta tes v. Sura , 51 1 F
. 3d 654, 65 9 (7th Cir. 2 0 08); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gi l l i am , 25 5 F
. 3d 428, 43 3 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 1). To deter m i ne i fW ozny ’ s no co ntestpl ea was e nt er ed k no wi ng l y a nd v o l un taril y, we r ev i ew the deci si on o fthe W i sco nsi n Court ofA pp eal s, the l astst ate c ou rtto r u l e o n t h e m er its of W oz n y’s cla im
. Si m e l t on v. Frank, 446 F.3d 666 , 669-70 (7th C ir. 2006). This cour t r evi ew s “ the di str i ct cour t’ s fi nd i ngs off act f or cl ear e rrorand i ts l ega l co ncl usi ons, as wellas m i xedN o. 07

- 3700 9 q u es tio n s o f law an d fac t, deno vo . ” R izzo v. Sm it h , 52 8 F
. 3d 5 0 1 , 5 0 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )

. Un d e r th e An t i t e r r o r i sm an d Effecti ve Death P en al ty A ct o f19 96 ( A ED PA ) , a federa l cour t m ay i ssue a w ri t ofh abea s cor pu s onl y i fthe deci si on of t h e la st st at e c ou rtto ex am in e t h e m er its of t h e p et iti one r’s cla i m was ( 1) “co ntra ryto , o r i nvol ved an unre asonab l e a pp l i cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabl i shed Fe deral Law , as deter m i ned by the Suprem e Court ofthe U ni ted S tat es, ” o r ( 2) “was bas ed o n an unreaso nabl e dete rm i nati on o f the f acts in l i ght o fthe evi dence pres ented i n the St ate cou rt proc eed ing.” 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254(d )( 1)-( 2). Ou r cour t has hel d that the questi on of w h ethera ple a of guil ty is en tered kn ow ingly, intelli gen tly an d volun tary i s a m i xe d que st i o n o fl aw a nd f ac t “tha t r equi r es the appli cati on o fl ega l pri nci ple s t o hi sto ri calf acts
. ” N as h v

. Israel , 7 07F
. 2d 29 8, 3 01 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 3). A l th o ug h the dist ri ct c ourtwas re quir ed to acc or d a p re sum pti on o f cor re ctness to the st ate co urts ’ fi nd i ngs o ff act, the distr i ctc o ur t was no t bo und b y the s ta te c o ur ts ’ l eg alc o nc lu sio n t h at W oz n y’s p lea o f g u ilty w as en te re d kn ow in gly w ith th e a d vic e o f co m p et en t c ou n se l. See Sum nerv. M ata , 45 5 U. S

. 5 91 , 5 97( 19 82 ) ( perc ur ia m )

. “ I t [ was ] the dist ri ct j ud ge’ s duty t o apply th e appli cabl e federa l l aw to the st ate co urt f act fi nd i ngs ind ependentl y. ” Se eTownse nd v. Sain , 372 U
. S. 293 (1963). I n thi s ca se , W o zn y ar g ue s th atthe s ta te c o ur t’ s fi ndi ng that h i s pl ea w as m ade kno w i ngl y a nd vo l untari l y was er ro neous. Rega rd l ess o fwh etherW ozny ’ s cl ai m r ai ses an i ssue of“pure f act, pure l aw , o r a m i xed questi on o f l aw and f act, we are r equi re d und erthe A ED PA to r evi ew10 N o. 07

- 3700 th e s ta te co u rt ’s a dj u d ica tio n on th e m er it s o fh is c laim d eferent ia lly and set the de cision aside on ly ifthe cou rt com m i tte d unreas on ab l e e rr or . ” Wa rd v . Sternes , 33 4 F
. 3d 69 6, 7 04 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3)

. Unr ea sonablen es s “s er ve s as the touchst one aga i nst which s tat e courtd eci si ons base d up on deter m in at ions off act i n l i ght o fthe evi dence pres ented ar e ev al ua te d. 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 254 ( d) ( 2)

. As thi s co ur t ex pl aine d i n Wa rd v . Sternes , 334 F.3d 696 ( 7th Cir. 2003), A s is th e case u n d e r section 225 4(d )( 1), a pet iti one r’s chal l enge to a deci si on ba sed o n a f actualdeter m i nati on wil l not succee d i f the peti ti oner m er el y e vi dences th atthe state c o ur t co m m i tt ed er r o r . I ns te ad, he m ust further est abl i sh that the sta te cour t com m i tte d unreas onabl e e rr or . A nd , se cti on 2 254( d)( 1) pro vi des a m echan ism by wh i ch the peti ti onercan prove that unr ea sonab l en es s. I fthe pe ti ti o ne r c ans ho w tha t th e st at e co ur t det erm i ne d the unde r l y i ngf ac tu ali ss ue ag ain st th e c lea r an d co n vin c in g w eig h t o f t h e e viden ce , the pe ti ti o ne r ha s no t o nl y e st ab l i sh ed tha t th e cou rt com m i tte d err oro n re achi ng a deci si on ba sed on that f aul ty f actual p re m i se, but has a l so gone a l ong w ay towards pro vi ng tha t i t co m m i tte d unreasonab l e error. A st ate co urt deci si on that r est s upon a d et erm i nati on o ff act that l i es aga i nst the cl ear w ei ght o fthe evi dence i s, by defi ni ti on, a dec isio n so i nadequ ate l y s up port ed by the r eco rd as to be arbi tr ar y a nd , ther ef or e, o bj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e. Id. at70 3-0 4. W ozny i ni ti al l y c ont en d s that hi s pl eas were not knowing and vol untarybec ause he ne ve r adm i tte d gui l t,N o. 07

- 3700 11 but i nstea d m ai ntai ned his innoce nce througho ut the sta te proce edi ngs. Pl ea agr eem ents ar e “ contr acts thatm us t be fulfi l l ed. ” Hartjes v. En dicott, 456 F.3d 786 , 790 (7th C ir. 2006 )

. Fo r that re aso n, defendan ts “ c annot obt ai n re l i ef b y t h e e x p ed ien t o f co n tr ad ict in g s t at em en ts free ly mad e un de r o a th, un l e s s the r e i s a c o mpe l l i ngr eas on f orthe dispar i ty. ” N un ez v . U nited Sta tes , 495 F. 3d 544, 54 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. I n thi s ca se , W o zn y ente red a pl ea o fno c on te st to th e c h ar g e s a n d “[b ]y p lea d in g n o c on te st, a defe nd ant i m pli edl y a dm i ts al l al l ega ti ons i n the i nd i ctm ent. ” Gom ez v. Be rge, 434 F .3 d 940, 942 (7th Cir. 2006). A dd itio nal l y, i t s houl d be not ed that du ri ng post convi cti o n pr o ce eding s, W o zn y s ta te d tha t he a po l o g i ze d t o the vi ct i m s at hi s se nt en ci nghe ar i ng . The a po l o g y was thus ane xpl i ci t ac kn o wl edg m en t o fr es po ns ibi l i tyf o r the offen ses, wh i ch i s f arfro m m ai ntai ni ng hi s innocence as W ozny co ntends. W o zn y ne xtc l ai m s th athi s pl eas wer e unkno wi nga nd involun tary bec au se ne ither cou ns el nor th e t r ial cou rt expla i ne d t he el em ents ofthe cri m es to hi m . S peci fi cal l y, W ozny co n te n d s that no o ne to l d him thatthe conta ct w i th the v i c t i ms mus t ha v e b e e n f o r the pu r pose of s e x u a l ar o u s a l o r g r a t i fi c a t i o n . T h i s a r g u me n ts t e ms excl usi vel y fr om W ozny ’ s test i m ony at the pos tco nvi cti on hear i ng. But the tr i alco urt disc re dit ed the tes ti m ony of the defendant and h is c ounselbec ause i t co ntra dict ed th e st ate m ents by both counseland W ozny atthe ple a h ea rin g. See Sin gh v. G o nz a les , 487 F.3d 105 6, 1060 ( 7th Cir. 2007 ) ( noti ng tha t e ar li ersworn s tat em ents “cannotbe se t a sid e t h e m om en t t h e o at h -ta ke r alle ge s t h at h e d id not un d erstan d ”).12 N o. 07

- 3700 W o zn y a l so a r g ue s th ath is pl ea s wer e i nv o l unt ar y a nd un kn ow ing bec au se th ey w ere en tered seve n day s b efore tr i alwas schedule d to begin . A t the pos tco nvi cti on m oti on hea ri ng, W ozny w as ask ed how l ong he had to re spond to the s tat e’ s o ffer . W ozny r epl i ed, “Alm ost ov er n igh t.” B u t, as id e fro m as se rt in g g en er ally th at th is w as a “ rushed pro ceedi ng, ” W ozny does notexpl ai n how m or e t i m e w oul d have hel ped him

. The ti m e W ozny had to consi der the pl ea agr eem ent i s i m m ate ri alto the questi on ofwh etherhi s p l eas were knowing and vol untary
. Because th e pet i ti o ne r ha s f ai l ed to de m o ns tr ate th atthe t i m i ng ofhi s pl eas r ende re d them i nvol untary, thi s co urt m ust up hold the sta te cou rts’ det erm ina tion th at th ey w ere vo lu n ta ry . S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . L undy , 48 4 F
. 3d 480, 48 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( noti ng tha t the pro xi m i ty ofthe ple a ag r ee m en t to t r i ali s “i r r el ev an t” so l o ng as th e defen dan t u n d er st oo d an d vo lu n ta rily e n te re d int o it); se e generally G a lbra ith v. U nited Sta tes , 313 F.3d 100 1, 1006 ( 7th Cir. 2002 ) ( “A pl ea i s volu ntar y when i t i s no t ind uced by thr e a t s o r mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i o ns , a nd the de fe nd a nti s ma de aw ar e o f th e d ire c t c on se q u en c es of th e p lea

. . . [a] p lea is knowing and i ntel l i gent w hen the defe nd ant i s co m petent, aw ar e o fthe charg es and advi sed by co m petent counsel

. ”) (i nt erna l citations om itted ). W o zn y ne xtco m pl ains tha t he was ne ve r i nf o r m ed ab o ut th e po ss ibi l i tyo fa n A lfo rd p lea , see N o rth Ca rol ina v. A lfo rd, 40 0 U .S. 25 (19 70 ), an d n ow su g g e st s t h at h e “ w as rea lly tr y i ngt o e nt era n A lfo rd ty pe pl ea . ” Thi s as se r ti o n h as no su ppo r t what so ev eri n the r ec o r d

. M or eo ve r, W o zn y affi rm ed b o th on th e plea agreem en t and i n op en cou rt th at he neve r conte ste d havi ng co m m i tte d the cr i m es.N o. 07

- 3700 13 Thus , whethe r he was t o l d o fthe e xi st en ce o fa n A lfo rd p lea h as n o b e a r i n g on h is a d m iss ion of gu ilt. Se eH ugiv. U nited Sta tes , 164 F.3d 378 , 382 (7th C ir. 1999). F i na l l y W o zn y make s m ucho ve r the c o nfu sio n abo ut whethe r the a ddi ti o na l s ta te c ha r g es woul d b e r ea d- i n a nd dism i sse d ordi sm i sse d outr i ght. B ut the tr i alcourt sta ted it did n ot factor thos e e xt ra c ou nt s in d eterm ining W ozn y’s se nt en ce ; a cc o r di ng l y, i t i s ha r d t o s ee ho w tha t co nfusi on a ffecte d him i n any w ay. Furtherm or e, bas ed on the reco rd befo re us a nd bec ause th e s t a t e c o ur t s ’ de ni a l o f W o z ny ’ s m oti on f or postco nvi cti on rel i efwas not obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e, w e affi rm the dist ri ct cour t’ s denia l of W ozn y’s peti ti on und er28 U
. S. C. § 2 254.

8- 21- 08