Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 16, 2008 Before JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge TERENCE… v. No. 98 C 1014 RANDALL WRIGHT, Shawano County Sheriff, Rudolph T. Randa

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
June 16, 2008
Before
JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 04‐1276
JOSEPH L. VAN PATTEN, Appeal from the United States
Petitioner‐Appellant, District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.
v.
No. 98 C 1014
RANDALL WRIGHT,
Shawano County Sheriff, Rudolph T. Randa,
Respondent‐Appellee. Chief Judge.
O R D E R
COFFEY, Circuit Judge, concurring. This case has been the subject of two reported
opinions from our Court. See, Van Patten v. Endicott, 489 F.3d 827 (7th Cir.), rev’d, Wright v.
Van Patten, 489 F.3d 827 (2007); Van Patten v. Deppisch , 434 F.3d 1038 (7 th Cir.) (2006). A
complete history will not be repeated here.
Earlier this year, in Wright v. Van Patten, 128 S.Ct., 743 (2008), the Supreme court
determined that the correct authority for reviewing Van Patten’s ineffective assistance of
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-1276 2
counsel claim that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right, vis‐a‐vis, the use of a telephone
in accepting his guilty plea during the proceedings in the Circuit Court for Shawano County, is
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Wisconsin. See, Wright v. Van Patten, 128 S.Ct. 743
(2008) (per curium). Further, the Court held that the state court proceeding did not result in a
decision that was contrary to or 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)).
The Supreme Court also reversed our judgment in Van Patten v. Endicott, 489 F.3d 827
(7th Cir.), rev’d, Wright v. Van Patten, 489 F.3d 827 (2007) and remanded the case to this court to
comply with the Court’s order.

-- 2 of 2 --