Habeas Corpus Petition

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Tyler A. Gonzales v. Cheryl Eplett

Case No.: 22-2393

Officials: Easterbrook, Ripple, and Wood, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Habeas Corpus Petition

Gonzales was involved in a bar altercation, after which he joined Pedro in a car. From the car’s window, Gonzales fired multiple shots towards a group of men, striking one in the leg. He faced charges under state law, including attempted first-degree intentional homicide with a potential maximum sentence of 40 years, as well as being a felon in possession of a firearm. Gonzales was presented with an opportunity to plead guilty to recklessly endangering safety and unlawful possession of a firearm, which would result in a recommended ten-year sentence. Despite consulting with his attorney, Frost, Gonzales declined the plea offer and opted for a speedy trial. Frost anticipated challenges with the state’s witnesses, given their history of probation violations, extensive felony records, intoxication during the incident, and inconsistent testimonies.

All the state’s witnesses were eventually located and testified during the trial, asserting that Gonzales was indeed the shooter. Rather than focusing on the charge of reckless endangerment, Frost persisted in seeking acquittal. However, the jury found Gonzales guilty of the more severe offense. Consequently, he was handed a 25-year prison sentence. In subsequent state post-conviction proceedings, Gonzales raised concerns about ineffective legal representation. Frost stated that advocating for the lesser-included offense never even crossed her mind. The Wisconsin appellate court upheld Frost’s performance as not falling below the “constitutional line,” though it did not address the issue of potential prejudice.

Upon reviewing his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, the Seventh Circuit expressed significant reservations about the quality of defense counsel’s representation but concluded that it could not assert that the state appellate court unreasonably applied the Strickland standard or made unreasonable factual determinations.

Affirmed

Decided 08/09/23

Full Text