Did the Seventh Circuit err when it reviewed the merits of Gonzales's claim de novo, did not analyze the particular reasons the Wisconsin court provided, and then 'deferred?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Federal habeas courts must review the particular reasons in the last state court’s decision to determine whether that decision involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). If either condition is met, then the federal court must undertake its own de novo review of the petitioner’s claim. Here, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued a decision on the merits of Petitioner Tyler Gonzales’s claim. That Strickland claim required the Wisconsin court to decide, inter alia, whether trial counsel performed deficiently—i.e., whether her performance was “reasonable[] under prevailing professional norms” (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). The questions presented are: 1. Did the Seventh Circuit err when it reviewed the merits of Gonzales’s claim de novo, did not analyze the particular reasons the Wisconsin court provided, and then “deferred”? 2. Did the Seventh Circuit err in deferring to the state court’s decision when that decision involves an unreasonable application of Strickland and is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts? 3. Did the Seventh Circuit err when it concluded that counsel’s performance was not deficient without assessing whether her performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms? i