Post-Conviction Relief-Deficient Representation

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Donald Pierce v. Frank Vanihel

Case No.: 22-2073

Officials: Easterbrook, Wood, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Post-Conviction Relief-Deficient Representation

Pierce was found guilty of multiple charges related to child molestation and identified as a repeat sexual offender. The trial hinged on the testimony of the victim and several adults who were informed about the incidents. Despite a violation of an Indiana evidentiary rule regarding the sequence of testimonies, Pierce’s attorney did not raise an objection. Subsequently, Pierce pursued post-conviction relief, contending that his attorney’s inaction resulted in inadequate representation under constitutional standards. The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected this claim, determining that the attorney’s decision not to object was a strategic choice and did not amount to constitutionally deficient performance. Pierce then turned to habeas relief, alleging that the state appellate court had misapplied Supreme Court precedent and made unreasonable factual conclusions. Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit upheld the previous ruling, concluding that the state court’s application of precedent was not unreasonable and its factual findings were justified.

Affirmed.

Decided 02/22/24

Full Text