Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Schroeder v. Tegels

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

May 16, 2017

RONALD E. SCHROEDER, Petitioner,
v.
LIZZIE TEGELS, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          BARBARA B. CRABB District Judge.

         Ronald Schroeder has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenges convictions from the year 2007 for sexual assault of an unconscious person, taking nude photographs of a woman without her consent and accessing her computer data without consent. (Petitioner was convicted of domestic abuse at the same time, but he is not challenging that conviction.) Petitioner has paid the $5 filing fee, so his petition is ready for screening under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Petitions, which requires the court to dismiss the petition if it plainly appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief.

         Before the court could screen the petition, petitioner filed an amended petition, dkt. #6, along with exhibits, dkt #6-2, and what he calls a brief, but is more accurately called a factual supplement, dkt. #7. The amended petition appears to be a replacement for the original, so I will disregard the original petition and screen the amended one.

         The form that petitioner submitted includes only four grounds for relief, but accompanying the petition is an “addendum” in which petitioner raises 20 “claims, ” many of which include both an alleged trial error and a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the alleged error. Because the first four claims in the addendum seem to match the claims in the petition, I will assume that the addendum includes all of the claims that petitioner wishes to bring. To avoid confusion, I will organize petitioner's claims the same way he does:

(1) Wis.Stat. § 940.225(2)(d) (prohibiting sexual assault of an unconscious person) violates the First Amendment as applied to petitioner; trial and post conviction counsel were constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise this issue;
(2) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial after the jury foreperson stated that he was “uncomfortable” viewing “the photos” and the trial judge failed to “adequately question” the juror; appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal;
(3) a detective tampered with a camera that was used as evidence; “counsel” was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge the evidence;
(4) petitioner's presentence investigation report included inaccurate information;
(5) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to “other acts” evidence;
(6) petitioner's conviction for accessing computer data without consent violates the First Amendment; trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of that charge;
(7) petitioner's trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to inform petitioner of a potential lesser included offense;
(8) the trial court violated petitioner's right to due process by failing to consider probation as a possible sentence;
(9) the trial court violated petitioner's right to due process by refusing trial counsel's request for a continuance “to research and address inaccurate information” that the court had received in letters from petitioner's “ex-wives and their families”;
(10) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to object to the admission of petitioner's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.