Peter Whyte v. Dan Winkleski

Summary

The Seventh Circuit held that a state prisoner's habeas claims regarding being forced to wear a visible stun belt at trial and ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally defaulted under adequate and independent state grounds. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals properly applied the procedural bars of *Escalona-Naranjo* (requiring claims to be raised at earliest opportunity) and *Allen* (requiring non-conclusory pleading of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel). Because the petitioner failed to show cause for his default, federal habeas review was foreclosed. The case reinforces that federal courts cannot review claims denied on adequate and independent state procedural grounds, even when the state court also addresses merits in the alternative.

Holdings

1. Whyte's claims are procedurally defaulted because the Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied them on adequate and independent state procedural grounds under Escalona-Naranjo and Allen.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Whyte's due process rights were violated by being required to wear a visible stun belt at trial.
2. Whether Whyte's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the stun belt.
3. Whether Whyte's postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these claims.

Disposition

affirmed