Court Opinion

ID: 9480681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:55:12.375859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:50.202770
License: Public Domain

SNEED, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring separately:
I concur in Part I of Judge Easterbrook’s opinion and in the result reached in Part II. Prihoda’s failure to include in his 1980 application for relief the “battery of arguments” raised in his 1985 application forfeited those arguments under Wisconsin law. That law as applied in this case met the requirements of Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308, (1989), as Judge Easterbrook’s opinion holds. It constitutes an independent and adequate state ground that precludes review by a federal court.