For the professional edge in your day-to-day practice, rely on the most timely, objective reporting on significant developments, trends, and emerging patterns in criminal law today—Criminal Law...
An inmate’s argument won out at the U.S. Supreme Court April 17 in a case about what method to use when reviewing inmates’ appeals.
A federal court conducting habeas corpus review of an unexplained state-court decision in most cases should “look through” to the last reasoned decision, presuming that the unexplained decision adopted the reasoning of the prior decision, the court said in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
“This approach is more likely to respect what the state court actually did, and easier to apply in practice, than to ask the federal court to substitute for silence the federal court’s thought as to more supportive reasoning,” the court said.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, dissenting and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said although the majority made the wrong decision it trimmed Wilson’s arguments so much that it gave him very little and mostly just created more work for both federal and state courts.
State courts may feel forced to state whether or not they are adopting the lower court’s reasoning, and federal courts face “a future of foraging through presumptions and rebuttals,” he said.
The court’s decision “is one of complication not consequence,” Adam K. Mortara, of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, told Bloomberg Law.
“The only way a state prisoner can qualify for habeas relief is if, in fact, the state court reasoning is unreasonable and thus the presumption announced does no work at all—the prisoner either loses because the lower state court was reasonable, or the test [reversed here] will apply because the presumption has been rebutted,” he added in echoing the dissent.
Mortara filed an amicus brief in support of the warden.
Timothy P. O’Toole and Sarah A. Dowd of Miller & Chevalier told to Bloomberg Law in a joint statement that “the decision gives individuals the chance to challenge the state court’s actual reasoning—rather than allowing a federal court to act as though the state adjudication never happened.” O’Toole and Dowd submitted an amicus brief in support of Wilson.
But the presumption that the earlier court’s reasoning was adopted is rebuttable if the state can show the most recent decision relied or most likely did rely on different grounds than the lower state court’s decision, the court said.
Marion Wilson’s post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance was denied in a detailed Georgia lower state court opinion. The state Supreme Court denied his application to appeal it in a one-sentence decision that didn’t explain its reasoning.
The question here was which state court decision the federal habeas court should evaluate—the detailed one from the lower state court or the unexplained state Supreme Court decision.
Wilson argued the detailed opinions should be the ones that count, because otherwise federal habeas courts can just conjure up any reason to deny claims rather than review them.
Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He claimed in Georgia Superior Court that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing. That court denied relief, saying counsel’s performance was not deficient. The Georgia Supreme Court summarily denied the appeal with no explanation.
Mark Evan Olive of Tallahassee, Fla., represented Wilson. Sarah Hawkins Warren represented the state.
The case is Wilson v. Sellers , 2018 BL 134085, U.S., No. 16-6855, 4/17/18 .
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at email@example.com
Copyright © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)