Rodney Lass v. Jason Wells, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 23-2880, 6/26/24
Lass was charged with multiple felony counts after his first trial on misdemeanor domestic abuse charges ended in a mistrial. During state postconviction and appeal proceedings, he raised claims of vindictive prosecution, ineffective assistance, and violation of his 6th amendment rights. The 7th Circuit denied relief as to Lass’s IAC and 6th amendment claims as procedurally defaulted, and rejects the vindictive prosecution claim because the Wisconsin courts already considered and reasonably rejected Lass’s same “fact-based arguments.”
Lass’s first case ended in a mistrial when the alleged victim, his former girlfriend, disregarded a court order and made irrelevant and unduly prejudicial statements to the jury. About a year later, the state brought another round of charges, including nine felonies and two misdemeanors, relating to the same conduct and also including new allegations of misconduct dating back several years. Lass moved to dismiss, arguing that the new case was vindictive and violated his due process rights. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing, at which the prosecutor gave her reasons for adding felony charges. The court found the prosecutor credible, concluded that the new charges were not vindictive, and denied the motion to dismiss.
After a trial, Lass filed a postconviction motion again raising the vindictive prosecution claim, as well as ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to the admission of Lass’s personal journal kept while he was receiving anger management counseling. The motion was denied without a hearing. Lass then appealed to the Wisconsin court of appeals and added a claim that his 6th amendment rights were violated when the circuit court excluded his presence at sidebars throughout the trial. See State v. Lass, No. 2018AP2192-CR, unpublished slip op. (June 23, 2020).
The 7th Circuit makes quick work of the IAC and 6th amendment claims, rejecting both as procedurally defaulted. The doctrine of procedural default limits state prisoners from receiving post-conviction relief in federal court. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 81, 87 (1977). “The doctrine precludes federal court review of ‘claims that the state court denied based on an adequate and independent state procedural rule.'” Davila v. Davis, 582 U.S. 521, 527 (2017). The court of appeals rejected Lass’s IAC claim because he failed to identify prejudice, and denied his 6th amendment claim because it was raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, both claims are procedurally defaulted.
As to the preserved claim–vindictive prosecution–the 7th circuit concludes that Lass failed to identify a legal error on the court of appeals’ part:
In the final analysis, we see no basis for federal habeas relief under § 2254(d) on Lass’s vindictive prosecution claim. No aspect of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ rationale is contrary to or reflects an unreasonable application of clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. And, perhaps more to the point, the record shows that the Wisconsin courts—the trial court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals—considered and reasonably rejected the precise fact-based arguments Lass presses in his pursuit of federal habeas relief.
