United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
JOSEPH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Hodkiewicz, a prisoner in Wisconsin custody, seeks a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Habeas
Pet., Docket # 1.) Hodkiewicz was convicted of nine felony
and misdemeanor offenses, and sentenced to eight years of
initial confinement and thirteen years of extended
supervision. (Id. at 3.) Hodkiewicz contends that
his conviction and sentence are unconstitutional. For the
reasons stated below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus
will be denied and the case dismissed.
convictions arose from allegations that he stalked, harassed,
and repeatedly assaulted his now ex-wife, S.P., during their
acrimonious divorce and child custody proceedings.
(Wisconsin v. Hodkiewicz, 2016AP359 (Wis. Ct. App.
July 18, 2017), Docket # 1-2 ¶ 1). At trial in March
2014, Hodkiewicz faced nine charges: (1) stalking, as a party
to a crime between May 2010 and January 2013; (2) unlawful
use of a telephone, as a domestic abuse repeater, on August
10, 2012; (3) disorderly conduct, as a domestic abuse
repeater, on August 6, 2012; (4) criminal damage to property,
as a domestic abuse repeater, on November 5, 2012; and on the
evening of July 1–2, 2013, all of the following: (5)
burglary of a building or dwelling; (6) substantial
battery-domestic abuse, as a domestic abuse repeater; (7)
strangulation and suffocation-domestic abuse, as a domestic
abuse repeater; (8) disorderly conduct-domestic abuse, as a
domestic abuse repeater; and (9) bail jumping. (Id.
trial, the prosecution’s theory was that Hodkiewicz was
a careful manipulator who harassed and repeatedly assaulted
S.P. while methodically concealing his activities. (Trial Day
1 Tr. 184–212, Docket # 14-8.) The defense relied
primarily on the lack of eyewitnesses or physical evidence
linking Hodkiewicz to the crimes, suggesting that
disagreements over their infant son motivated S.P. to
fabricate these allegations against Hodkiewicz. (Trial Day 1
Tr. 214–22, Docket # 14-8.) After a six-day trial, the
jury convicted Hodkiewicz on all counts. (Docket # 14-8 to
Docket # 14-18.) The facts as summarized by the court of
appeals are as follows, with additional information and
citations to the record as relevant.
testified that she and Hodkiewicz were married and living
together at a residence on Weed Street in Shawano in May
2010. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 4.) S.P. was eight months pregnant
and had suffered preeclampsia, which required her to remain
on bed rest for much of the pregnancy. (Id.; Trial
Day 2 Tr. 17, Docket # 14-9.) S.P. claimed that on May 13,
2010, Hodkiewicz pushed her down and rubbed her face against
a wall. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 4.) S.P. testified she did not
immediately report this to police because she was afraid and
did not want Hodkiewicz to get into trouble. (Id.)
However, she told Hodkiewicz to leave and not come back.
(Id.) Hodkiewicz left, but he returned several times
during the following week. (Id.) As a result, on May
20, 2010, S.P. reported the May 13 incident to police.
(Id.) Hodkiewicz denied hitting or pushing S.P. on
May 13, 2010. (Id. ¶ 6.) However, he admitted
grabbing her wrist and “kind of pulling back and
forth” in an attempt to get his phone and pager, which
he claimed S.P. had taken from him. (Id.) S.P.
testified that, on a subsequent occasion in May 2010,
Hodkiewicz pushed her down the stairs. (Id. ¶
5.) On May 24, 2010, Hodkiewicz filed for divorce.
(Id. ¶ 4.)
also testified regarding an incident on May 27, 2010, in
which Hodkiewicz returned to the residence and chased her
into a bathroom. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 5.) A struggle
ensued, during which Hodkiewicz pushed S.P., causing her to
hit her head on the sink. (Id.) S.P. testified she
was knocked unconscious, and regained consciousness when her
mother found her lying on the bathroom floor. (Trial Day 2
Tr. 23–28, Docket # 14-9.) Several witnesses testified
about responding to aid S.P. (Testimony of Karen P., Trial
Day 3 part 1 Tr. 74–80, Docket # 14-10; Testimony of
Jeff Lenzer, Trial Day 3 Tr. 112–16, Docket # 14-10.)
S.P. testified that when she went to the emergency room,
medical staff questioned her about her injuries, apparently
suspicious of her story that she fell down the stairs, and
the admitting nurse gave her a “safe word” to say
if she had concerns for her safety. (Trial Day 2 Tr.
29–33, Docket # 14-9.) The on-call OB/Gyn, Dr. Halloin,
testified that S.P. told him she had been dizzy and fallen;
Dr. Halloin testified that preeclampsia does not usually
cause fainting. (Trial Day 3 part 1 Tr. 7–24, Docket #
14-10.) Hodkiewicz denied having any contact with S.P. on May
27, 2010. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 6.)
couple’s son J. was born via emergency c-section on May
28, 2010. (Id.) Dr. Halloin testified that it was
clear the relationship between S.P. and Hodkiewicz was not
good, and that during a conversation with Hodkiewicz outside
the delivery room, Hodkiewicz asked about a paternity test
for the baby. (Id.) Dr. Halloin testified that at
the six-week postpartum visit, S.P. told Dr. Halloin that her
bruising had been caused by Hodkiewicz. (Id.) Dr.
Halloin dictated a letter for S.P.’s file, noting that
S.P. said she was hit and was very upset about the
relationship. (Id.) Dr. Halloin explained that in
his experience, victims of domestic violence often do not
disclose it, at least initially. (Id.) Dr. Halloin
testified that S.P. appeared to have already reported the
incident to police. (Id.)
J.’s birth, S.P. allowed Hodkiewicz to stay at the Weed
Street residence at times and permitted him to spend time
with J. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 7.) S.P. testified that
Hodkiewicz came to the residence on August 9, 2010, but when
S.P. told him it was not “a good time” for a
visit, he became “angry and upset.”
(Id.) Sometime after Hodkiewicz left, S.P. observed
a large cut in the side of an above-ground, rubber-sided
swimming pool in the yard. (Id.) Two others
testified that they saw the slashed pool: Jed Reinke, who was
the father of S.P.’s older son, and a Shawano police
officer. (Testimony of Jed Reinke, Trial Day 3 part 1 Tr.
178–80, Docket # 14-10; Testimony of Daniel Conradt,
Trial Day 3 part 1 Tr. 41–48, Docket # 14-10.)
Hodkiewicz denied involvement (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 7), and an
investigation found no evidence connecting the pool slashing
to Hodkiewicz (Testimony of Daniel Conradt, Trial Day 3 part
1 Tr. 46–47, Docket # 14-10).
the same time period, S.P. testified she found a dead rabbit
on her doorstep. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 7.) S.P. also
complained to police that Hodkiewicz would drive by
periodically, and that he carried a tape recorder with him.
(Testimony of Daniel Conradt, Trial Day 3 part 1 Tr. 43,
Docket # 14-10.) Hodkiewicz testified that he knew nothing of
the dead rabbit but admitted that he carried a voice recorder
on the advice of his attorney and law enforcement. (Trial Day
5 Tr. 103–04, Docket # 14-16.)
September 1, 2010, S.P. found an insult keyed into the door
of her vehicle. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 7.) S.P. testified the
vehicle was in a locked garage, and that Hodkiewicz had a key
and a garage door opener. (Trial Day 2 Tr. 38–39,
Docket # 14-9.) S.P.’s father testified that he saw the
insult in S.P.’s car door, and saw a garage door opener
on the visor of Hodkiewicz’s vehicle. (Testimony of
David P., Trial Day 1 Tr. 227–33, Docket # 14-8.) The
officer who responded testified that he found no evidence
linking this incident to Hodkiewicz, and did not retrieve the
garage door opener reportedly in Hodkiewicz’s truck.
(Testimony of Ryan Atkinson, Trial Day 3 Tr. 31–40,
Docket # 14-10.)
days later, S.P. found a red liquid in her dog’s dish,
which her father believed to be antifreeze. (Docket # 1-2
¶ 7.) She approached Hodkiewicz about it, and he told
her not to worry because it was not the toxic kind of
antifreeze, a level of knowledge that concerned her. (Trial
Day 2 Tr. 40–41, Docket # 14-9.) Hodkiewicz denied
involvement (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 7) and testified that he
only happened to know that green antifreeze was toxic while
red was not (Trial Day 5 Tr. 93–95, Docket # 14-16).
spring 2011, Hodkiewicz moved to the marital home and S.P.
moved to a home in the village of Pulaski, but still in
Shawano County. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 8; Testimony of S.P.,
Trial Day 2 Tr. 45, Docket # 14-9.) In September 2011, S.P.
testified that she found the body of a stray cat hanging from
a tree outside her home. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 8.) Around the
same time, S.P. testified that she found a “pretty big
pile of animal guts” in her driveway. (Id.)
Again, Hodkiewicz denied involvement in these incidents.
further testified that, on the evening of December 9, 2011,
she was home alone and went to her garage to take out some
recycling. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 9.) While there, she was
struck on the head, which caused her to fall and hit her chin
on the cement floor. (Id.) When she tried to get up,
someone struck or kicked her leg. (Id.) While she
was on the floor, S.P. heard Hodkiewicz say that she was
crazy, that she should not have J., and that she should call
the police because they also thought she was crazy.
(Id.) S.P. testified that when her assailant left,
she called her mother, and they went to the emergency room.
(Trial Day 2 Tr. 58-59, Docket # 14-9.) The emergency room
doctor, Dr. Zifferblatt, testified that S.P. said she had
been assaulted by her husband and she thought she had been
hit by shovel, but she refused to report the incident to
police despite encouragement from himself and the nurses.
(Testimony of Jocko Zifferblatt, Trial Day 3 Tr. 25-30,
Docket # 14-10.) S.P. testified that she talked to a domestic
violence shelter, Safe Haven, and reported the December 9
incident to police a few days after it happened. (Trial Day 2
Tr. 60-61, Docket # 14-9.) Police collected a snow shovel
from the scene and took a picture showing how S.P.’s
injuries fit the handle of the snow shovel. (Testimony of
Troy Ugoretz, Trial Day 3 part 1 Tr. 163-72, Docket # 14-10.)
A DNA swab on the shovel revealed no identifiable DNA.
(Testimony of Randal Dunford, Trial Day 4 part 2 Tr. 14-17,
Docket # 14-13.)
denied striking or otherwise harming S.P. on December 9,
2011. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 10.) It was undisputed
that Hodkiewicz had placement of J. that night.
(Id.) In addition, Hodkiewicz’s neighbor, Kyle
Thorson, testified that he heard Hodkiewicz’s garage
door open sometime between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. that evening,
“so [he] knew [Hodkiewicz] was backing his truck
in.” (Id.) Thorson testified that he texted
Hodkiewicz and then went over to Hodkiewicz’s garage
sometime between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m., and they talked for
sixty to ninety minutes. (Id.)
January 26, 2012, Hodkiewicz was placed on probation for the
May 2010 disorderly conduct convictions. (Testimony of Julie
Krause, Trial Day 2 Tr. 232-56, Docket # 14-9.) His probation
officer, Julie Krause, testified that she encouraged S.P. to
call her and that she developed a rapport with S.P., who
called up to 150 times during Hodkiewicz’s one-year
probation. (Id.) Krause testified that Hodkiewicz
was returned to custody six times during his probation, most
of which were in response to information from S.P.
(Id.) Krause stated that Hodkiewicz was put on a
proximity monitor in part at Hodkiewicz’s request.
testified that in January 2012 she found an anonymous note
inside her mailbox that said “u r dun, ” and on
another occasion during the same time frame she found a live
cat inside her mailbox. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 11.) Around that
time, her dog went missing and was found thirty miles away.
(Id.) On February 1, 2012, S.P. discovered garden
shears stuck into the driver’s seat of her vehicle and
a meat fork stuck into J.’s car seat. (Id.) A
Shawano County deputy testified that he was unsuccessful in
finding any fingerprints on either item, opining that they
could have been wiped down or the perpetrator could have worn
gloves. (Testimony of James Hauer, Trial Day 2 Tr. 217-18,
Docket # 14-9.) Hodkiewicz denied involvement in these
incidents. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 11.)
March 2012, S.P. moved in with her parents. (Id.
¶ 12.) She testified that at that time she began a
new job and obtained a new phone number that she did not give
to Hodkiewicz. (Testimony of S.P., Trial Day 2 Tr. 76-77,
Docket # 14-9.) In late spring and into summer of 2012, S.P.
received a large number of calls on her phone from a
restricted or unknown number. (Id. Tr. 76-81.) At
some point, S.P. began to answer the calls in an attempt to
determine who was making them. (Docket # 1-2 ¶
23.) On July 13 and July 20, 2012, the caller made
insulting remarks and S.P. recognized the caller’s
voice as Hodkiewicz’s. (Id.) In a July 27,
2012 call, the caller made insulting comments but S.P.
testified she could not identify the caller’s voice
because she was at work and it was difficult to hear.
(Id.) Also in July 2012, S.P. received an insulting
text message with the letter “u” in place of
“you.” (Id.) A Shawano County deputy
testified that S.P. reported the phone calls in July 2012 and
showed him her call log with numerous calls from unknown or
restricted numbers. (Testimony of James Hauer, Trial Day 2
Tr. 217–18, Docket # 14-9.)
July 2012, S.P. moved from her parents’ home to an
apartment in Brown County. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 14.) She
reported the continuing phone calls to Pulaski police in
August 2012. (Testimony of Mark Hendzel, Trial Day 4 Tr. 4,
Docket # 14-15.) Officer Hendzel, a Pulaski Police Department
investigator, testified that S.P. appeared intimidated and
said she felt harassed and threatened. (Id. Tr.
6–7.) Hendzel also testified that the phone records he
subpoenaed and reviewed corroborated S.P.’s account of
the calls from “unknown” or
“restricted” numbers. (Id. Tr. 75.)
Hendzel explained that police traced some of the harassing
phone calls and texts to a specific TracFone. (Docket # 1-2
¶ 13.) The activation number for the TracFone was the
general number for Little Rapids Paper Corporation, where
Hodkiewicz worked. (Testimony of Mark Hendzel, Trial Day 4
Tr. 11– 13, Docket # 14-15.) Hodkiewicz denied
activating or using the TracFone that was used to call and
text S.P. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 14.) Moreover, Hodkiewicz was
in custody at the Shawano County Jail on a probation hold on
May 12, 2012, the date the TracFone was activated.
testified that she did not tell people other than her parents
that she was moving to an apartment in Brown County at the
end of July, 2012. (Testimony of S.P., Trial Day 2 Tr.
81-82.) On August 6, 2012, she found some flowers outside the
door. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 14.) S.P. testified she
“assumed that somebody either left [the flowers] in the
wrong spot or they were . . . from the apartment
complex.” (Id.) However, on August 10, 2012,
she received a phone call in which the caller asked,
“Did you get them?” (Id.) When S.P. did
not respond, the caller said, “[Y]ou did, ” and
then laughed. (Id.) S.P. testified she recognized
the caller as Hodkiewicz. (Id.) Hodkiewicz denied
delivering flowers to S.P. or calling her on August 10, 2012.
(Id.) S.P. testified that on September 26, 2012, she
found flowers on the outdoor balcony of her second-floor
apartment. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 15.) A DNA swab on the second
set of flowers was negative for Hodkiewicz. (Testimony of
Randal Dunford, Trial Day 4 part 2 Tr. 14–17, Docket #
early October 2012, law enforcement searched
Hodkiewicz’s house for the TracFone and did not find
it, though they found multiple other phones at the residence.
(Testimony of Randal Dunford, Trial Day 4 part 2 Tr.
22–24, Docket # 14-13; Testimony of Mark Hendzel, Trial
Day 4 part 4 Tr. 17–22, Docket # 14-15.) Officers also
interviewed Hodkiewicz twice, and he denied involvement in
the phone calls. (Testimony of Mark Hendzel, Trial Day 4 part
4 Tr. 23, Docket # 14-15.) On November 5, 2012, S.P. found an
insult scratched into the driver’s side door of her
vehicle, using a lowercase “u” in place of
2013, Hodkiewicz had been charged with stalking, placed on
probation, and told to have no contact with S.P. Police had
installed a VARDA alarm in S.P.’s apartment, placing it
up high in the kitchen to keep it away from children.
(Testimony of S.P., Trial Day 2 Tr. 91–92.) In May
2013, S.P. believed she saw Hodkiewicz driving hear her home,
and in June 2013, she reported that the rearview mirror on
her car was damaged and saw a vehicle registered to
Hodkiewicz’s father near her residence. (Id.
Tr. 92–93.) Hodkiewicz denied involvement with the
rearview mirror (Trial Day 5 Tr. 129, Docket # 14-16), and
DNA testing on the rearview mirror was negative for
Hodkiewicz (Testimony of Randal Dunford, Trial Day 4 part 2
Tr. 27, Docket # 14–13).
night of July 1–2, 2013, J. was staying with Hodkiewicz
at Hodkiewicz’s parents’ residence. (Id.
¶ 16.) S.P. testified she fell asleep on the couch in
her apartment at around 10:30 p.m. (Id.) She had
taken Percocet because she was recovering from hand surgery,
and she admitted the events of that evening were somewhat
“fuzzy.” (Id.) She fell asleep sucking
on a lollipop to ease the nausea caused by the pain
medication. (Trial Day 2 Tr. 96, Docket # 14-9.) At some
point, S.P. woke up and went into the bathroom. (Docket # 1-2
¶ 16.) As she turned on the bathroom light, she felt
something-possibly a rubber tube- being wrapped around her
neck. (Id.) She also felt something over her mouth
that “tasted like powder” or latex.
(Id.) A struggle ensued, during which S.P. testified
she saw Hodkiewicz’s reflection in the bathroom mirror.
(Id.) S.P. lost consciousness and later woke up
lying on the bathroom floor, naked from the waist down.
(Id.). The lollipop was on the floor, with parts of
it stuck in her hair, and the bathroom door was damaged.
(Trial Day 2 Tr. 107–08, Docket # 14-9.)
testified that she left the bathroom to retrieve her phone,
locked herself in the bathroom, and called her mother, then
Reinke, then 9-1-1. (Id. Tr. 105–06.) She was
taken to St. Mary’s hospital, then transferred to St.
Vincent’s for a SANE (sexual assault) exam.
(Id. at 110.) The SANE nurse, Larraine Borroughs,
testified about the exam she performed on S.P. (Trial Day 3
part 2 Tr. 3–20, Docket # 14-11; Trial Day 4 part 1 Tr.
18–35, Docket # 14-12.) DNA testing on the SANE kit was
negative for Hodkiewicz. (Testimony of Randal Dunford, Trial
Day 4 Tr. 16–17, Docket # 14-13.)
enforcement attempted unsuccessfully to locate Hodkiewicz
after the assault on S.P. (Testimony of James Hauer, Trial
Day 2 Tr. 212–25, Docket # 14-9.) Between 4:00 a.m. and
8:00 a.m., an officer drove by Hodkiewicz’s
parents’ house repeatedly, as well as the former
marital home and Hodkiewicz’s workplace, and did not
see Hodkiewicz’s truck at any location. (Id.)
Officers took S.P.’s entire bathroom door for testing
and found only S.P.’s DNA on it. (Testimony of Randal
Dunford, Trial Day 4 Tr. 17, Docket # 14-13.)
testified he was at his parents’ home with J. on the
night of July 1–2, 2013. (Docket # 1-2 ¶ 17.)
Hodkiewicz’s mother testified she saw Hodkiewicz go to
bed at about 9:30 p.m. on July 1, and she next saw him at
6:40 a.m. the following morning. (Id.) She did not
hear Hodkiewicz leave the house during the night.
(Id.) Hodkiewicz’s father testified he
returned home from a meeting at 10:20 p.m. on July 1 and saw
Hodkiewicz’s truck parked near the family’s home.
(Id.) He testified he did not hear Hodkiewicz leave
the house until 5:00 a.m. the next morning. (Id.)
manager of S.P.’s apartment complex testified that,
although it was difficult, it was possible to access
second-floor balconies using furniture on patios beneath, and
there was furniture beneath S.P.’s balcony. (Testimony
of Peggy Campbell, Trial Day 2 Tr. 225–31, Docket #
14-9.) Pulaski Police Chief Randal Dunford testified about
photos he took of S.P.’s balcony as well as a
“patio set” and a dented air conditioning unit
below the balcony. (Testimony of Randal Dunford, Trial Day 4
Tr. 7–11, Docket # 14-13.)
closing argument, the prosecution described Hodkiewicz as
“careful” and “methodical, ” and
pointed to evidence that corroborated S.P.’s claims:
the physical injuries, the shovel that lined up perfectly
with the injury to her face, the notes, the insults scratched
in the car, the phone records, the gardening shears and meat
fork stuck in the car seats, the linear marks on her neck and
the sucker on the floor, the dent in the air conditioning
unit underneath S.P.’s balcony, etc. (Trial Day 6 part
1 Tr. 148–75, 201–20, Docket # 14-17.) The
defense argued that while it did not dispute that S.P. had
been injured, there was no evidence linking those injuries or
any of the other alleged crimes to Hodkiewicz. (Id.
Tr. 175–201.) After deliberating for under five hours,
the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.
(Id. Tr. 230–31.)
after trial, counsel for Hodkiewicz filed a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on insufficiency
of the evidence, and for a new trial based on court errors.
(Docket # 12-7.) After a hearing on the motion, the circuit
court denied it. (Docket # 12-8.)
moved for post-conviction relief with eleven distinct
arguments, including those he raises in this petition.
(Docket # 14-1.) The circuit court held three evidentiary
hearings before denying the motion in its entirety, with the
exception of correcting an error in calculating
Hodkiewicz’s sentence. (Docket # 14-20, Docket # 14-21,
Docket # 14-22, Docket # 10-4 at 60–87.) The court of
appeals reversed Hodkiewicz’s convictions on Counts 2
and 3 related to the August 2010 incident with the flowers
and phone call (Docket # 1-2 ¶¶ 36–43),
but otherwise affirmed the denial of Hodkiewicz’s
post-conviction motion (Docket # 1-2). Hodkiewicz timely
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court.
(Docket # 1.)
petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Under AEDPA, a writ of
habeas corpus may be granted if the state court decision on
the merits of the petitioner’s claim (1) was
“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States, ” 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(1); or (2) “was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding, ” 28 U.S.C. §
court’s decision is “contrary to . . . clearly
established Federal law as established by the United States
Supreme Court” if it is “substantially different
from relevant [Supreme Court] precedent.”
Washington v. Smith, 219 F.3d 620, 628 (7th Cir.
2000) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.
362, 405 (2000)). The court of appeals for this circuit
recognized the narrow application of the “contrary
[U]nder the “contrary to” clause of §
2254(d)(1), [a court] could grant a writ of habeas corpus . .
. where the state court applied a rule that contradicts the
governing law as expounded in Supreme Court cases or where
the state court confronts facts materially indistinguishable
from a Supreme Court case and nevertheless arrives at a
Washington, 219 F.3d at 628. The court further
explained that the “unreasonable application of”
clause was broader and “allows a federal habeas court
to grant habeas relief whenever the state court
‘unreasonably applied [a clearly established] principle
to the facts of the prisoner’s case.’”
Id. (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413).
unreasonable, a state court ruling must be more than simply
“erroneous” and perhaps more than “clearly
erroneous.” Hennon v. Cooper, 109 F.3d 330,
334 (7th Cir. 1997). Under the “unreasonableness”
standard, a state court’s decision will stand “if
it is one of several equally plausible outcomes.”
Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 748–49 (7th
Cir. 1997). In Morgan v. Krenke, the court explained
Unreasonableness is judged by an objective standard, and
under the “unreasonable application” clause,
“a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply
because that court concludes in its independent judgment that
the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established
federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that
application must also be unreasonable.”
232 F.3d 562, 565–66 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Williams, 529 U.S. at 411), cert. denied,
532 U.S. 951 (2001). Accordingly, before a court may issue a
writ of habeas corpus, it must determine that the state court
decision was both incorrect and unreasonable.
Washington, 219 F.3d at 627.
relief is available only for state court decisions that are
contrary to federal law. This court may not review whether a
state court properly applied its own state laws. Estelle
v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (“[I]t
is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine
state-court determinations on state-law questions.”).
argues that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus due to
(1) violation of the Confrontation Clause by the use of
hearsay evidence (Docket # 1 at 7, Docket # 1-1 at 5–
7, Docket # 15 at 12–14); (2) violation of due process
by the use of testimony the State knew or should have known
was false (Docket # 1 at 8, Docket # 1-1 at 7–10,
Docket # 15 at 14– 21); (3) ineffective assistance of
trial counsel for failing to object to the
hearsay/confrontation violation, object or respond to the
State’s false evidence, or properly respond to other
misleading testimony (Docket # 1 at 9, Docket # 1-1 at
10–13, Docket # 15 at 21–36); and (4) violation
of the Double Jeopardy Clause by conviction and sentencing
for both bail jumping and strangulation (Docket # 1 at 10,
Docket # 15 at 36–39).
argue that Hodkiewicz forfeited his confrontation, due
process, and double jeopardy challenges by not objecting on
those grounds at trial. (Docket # 18 at 14.) Hodkiewicz
replies that these claims are not forfeited because the court
of appeals did not ...