Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
David Minnick v. Dan Winkleski, Warden
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 20-3253 · judgment September 21, 2021
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
-
Whether the “reasonableness” standard for assessing deficient performance of defense counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), permits a categorical exception immunizing unreasonable advice regarding the likely sentence to be imposed following a guilty plea.
-
Whether the circumstance-specific reasonableness inquiry for assessing deficient performance of counsel under Strickland and Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), permits application of a standard limiting ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal exclusively to circumstances in which counsel’s deficient/ unreasonable performance consists of omitting or overlooking an issue that is “clearly stronger” than those counsel raised on the direct appeal.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Robert R. Henak
Henak Law Office, S.C.
For respondent
Sarah Lynn Burgundy
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Mar 21 2022Petition DENIED.
- Feb 23 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
- Feb 16 2022Waiver of right of respondent Dan Winkleski to respond filed.
- Jan 21 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2022)