Postconviction Relief-Attorney Conflict of Interest

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Keith Henyard v. Cheryl Eplett

Case No.: 22-3086

Officials: Rovner, St. Eve, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Postconviction Relief-Attorney Conflict of Interest

Henyard faced eight drug-related felonies in Wisconsin. During his preliminary hearing, Court Commissioner Frank Parise presided. Later, Henyard retained Parise as his attorney. Parise negotiated a plea deal for Henyard, who admitted guilt to four charges while the remaining four were dropped but factored into his sentencing. Henyard did not voice concerns about any potential conflict of interest regarding Parise during these proceedings. He received a sentence of 12 years in prison plus 5 years of extended supervision for one count, and 6 years of probation for the other three counts.

Henyard later filed a petition for postconviction relief with the Kenosha County Circuit Court, alleging that Parise’s prior involvement in his preliminary hearing created a conflict of interest, resulting in ineffective representation. The circuit court dismissed his petition, finding no evidence of an actual or significant potential conflict. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals similarly rejected Henyard’s petition, citing his failure to prove that Parise’s alleged conflict negatively impacted his defense. The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to review Henyard’s petition.

Subsequently, Henyard sought a writ of habeas corpus from the federal district court, which also dismissed his petition. The court ruled that Henyard must demonstrate a conflict that impeded counsel’s performance, in line with precedent set by the United States Supreme Court. It determined that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision adhered to this precedent and applied the law reasonably in denying Henyard relief.

In the Seventh Circuit, Henyard contended that Parise’s conflict of interest undermined his representation. The court upheld the lower courts’ rulings, asserting that Henyard failed to prove that Parise actively represented conflicting interests or that any purported conflict adversely affected his legal representation. It concluded that the state court’s rejection of Henyard’s petition did not contradict or unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/26/24

Full Text