Entries tagged with “habeas” from Harmfulerror

Via Scotusblog, the US Supreme Court issued several opinions this week:

Wood v. Allen - Interpretation of 28 USC 2254(d)(2) and its requirement that federal habeas relief not be granted, in relevant part, unless the state court's decision was based "on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding."  The issue of whether the state court unreasonably applied Strickland is not addressed. 

South Carolina v. North Carolina - original action concerning apportionment of river water, the opinion addresses the standard for a nonstate entity's intervention in an original action.

Kucana v. Holder - judicial review of discretionary immigration decisions by the Attorney General is prohibited only for determinations made discretionary by statute, not by regulation. 

Presley v. Georgia - per curiam, 7-2 - In addition to a First Amendment right of access to jury selection, there is also a Sixth Amendment right to public proceedings for the accused.  Before closing the courtroom, trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accomodate public attendance at criminal trials.

Wellons v. Hall - per curiam, 5-4 - The Court decides the defendant was entitled to discovery.  It pretty much speaks for itself:

"From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect. The disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial, and this petition raises a serious question about whether the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed those facts before addressing petitioner's constitutional claims. We know that the Court of Appeals committed the same procedural error that we corrected in Cone v. Bell, 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 17-18). We do not know how the court would have ruled if it had the benefit of our decision in that case.

Petitioner Marcus Wellons was convicted in Georgia state court of rape and murder and sentenced to death. Although the trial looked typical, there were unusual events going on behind the scenes. Only after the trial did defense counsel learn that there had been unreported ex parte contacts between the jury and the judge, that jurorsand a bailiff had planned a reunion, and that "either during or immediately following the penalty phase, some jury members gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts," 554 F. 3d 923, 930 (CA11 2009). The judge had not reported any of this to the defense."

 

 

The Ninth Circuit published a decision this morning in Wilson v. Belleque.  The opinion is instructive to state court practitioners who want to make a pretrial challenge involving double jeopardy to the federal courts following denial of a motion to dismiss in state court.  

Pearson v. Callahan - qualified immunity for police officers.  Unanimous opinion authored by Justice Alito.  The Court overrules the procedure for determining whether officers are immune from a civil rights action that was established in Saucier v. Katz.  It explains the standards following stare decisis vs. revisiting precedent.  It also finds that the Saucier procedure is often appropriate, but is no longer mandatory in all cases.  The Court also finds that the search at issue, which involved "consent once removed" and an informant, was not cleraly established as unconstitutional at the time of entry, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee - Title IX action re: gender discrimination.  Unanimous opinion authored by Justice Alito.  The Court holds that Title IX does not preclude a 1983 civil rights action alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools.

Locke v. Karass - public sector unions and non-member agency fees for litigation expenses.  Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion.  Justice Alito authored a concurring opinion which was joined by Chief Justice and Justice Scalia.  The Court holds that the First Amendment permits a local union to charge nonmembers for national litigation expenses in certain situations.

Waddington v. Sarausad - habeas relief and ambiguous jury instruction.  Justice Thomas authored the majority opinion.  Justice Souter authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.  The Court holds that the Ninth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief because a Washington court's decision that a jury instruction defining accomplice liability was not ambiguous was not an objectively unreasonable decision.  The Court also finds that the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that there was a reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor's closing argument caused the jury to apply the instruction in a way that relieved the State of its burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Spears v. United States - Per curiam opinion concerning the federal sentencing guidelines and the crack/powder cocaine disparity.

 

The Nevada Supreme Court has issued several unpublished orders resolving appeals in criminal cases.  Some are of interest, though they may not be cited as precedent under SCR 123.

In Dealba v. State, the Court reverses a judgment of conviction of one count each of robbery with use, attempted murder with use, and possession of a firearm by an ex-felon.  The district court allowed a detective to testify about several statements made by Dealba's co-defendant following the co-defendant's arrest.  The trials of the two defendants were not severed.  The co-defendant did not testify, but the district court did order that Dealba's name be replaced with the word "individual" in the interrogation transcript of the co-defendant.  No limiting instruction was given.  The Court finds that it was error to fail to give the jury a limiting instruction under Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987).  The Court rejects Dealba's argument that the use of the word "individual" as a redaction was error.  The Court finds that the error was not harmless and notes that neither of the two victims were able to identify Dealba.

In Hodson v. State, the Court affirms a judgment and rejects the defendant's First Amendment arguments concerning his conviction for one count of making a bomb threat.

In Spinks v. State, the Court affirms an order of restitution for $16,040.49, on a reckless driving and DUI conviction, based upon the victim's medical expenses relating to a pre-existing heard condition which the victim argued was exacerbated by the car accident involved in the DUI incident.  No medical or expert testimony was presented to establish causation.  The Court upheld the district court's retitution order based upon the testimony of the victim and receipts for the expenses.  This one is pretty interest and fairly controversial.  I'm surprised it's an unpublished disposition. 

In Croft v. State, the Court affirms an order of the district court denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but also finds that the district court was wrong to find that the petition was a "fugitive document" because the defendant filed the petition in proper person and his trial counsel had not filed a motion to withdraw.  "A post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a collateral proceeding from the underlying criminal conviction, and thus, the fact that trial counsel had not withdrawn from the case when appellant filed his petition had no bearing upon the propriety of the filing of the petition in proper person."  This is a basic proposition, but the fact that it had to be explained to a seasoned judge should have warranted publication of the order as an opinion so as to provide guidance to the district courts.

Downs v. Napolitano - an inmate non-lawyer may not not receive a contingency fee for preparing a medical malpractice action.  The Court will not recognize an action for breach of contract based upon an act which violates state law. 

In an unpublished decision of December 31, the Nevada Supreme Court granted a new penalty hearing in the capital case of Jones v. State.  The Court found ineffective assistance of trial counsel based upon failure to investigate mitigating evidence and failure to prepare for the penalty phase.  The Court also found extensive prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument on the penalty phase.  The Court acknowledged that it relied upon an erroneous standard of review on direct appeal when it affirmed Jones' death sentence despite a finding of prosecutorial misconduct because of "overwhelming evidence of guilt."  "Rather than focusing on the evidence of guilt, when reviewing prosecutorial misconduct committed during a penalty hearing, the focus of the prejudice inquiry should be on the penalty proceedings and whether the misconduct 'so infected the proceedings with unfairness as to make the results a denial of due process."  Someone puzzling is the fact that the opinion with the erroneous standard was published, but the Court's acknowledgement of its use of incorrect standard is unpublished, so the erroneous standard appears to stand as valid despite its obvious flaw.  The Court affirms Jones' judgment of conviction as to issues raised concerning the guilt phase.

Disclosure: I am counsel for Jones.

This morning the United States Supreme Court issued opinions in Chambers v. United States and Jimenez v. Quarterman. 

In Chambers, the Court concludes that a state court offense of failure to report for penal confinement was not a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act.  The federal statute defines "violent felony" in part as a crime that "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."  The Court holds that it is the generic crime that counts, not how the crime was committed on a particular occasion.  Under this categorical approach, failure to report for prison is not a violent felony.  The opinion is authored by Justice Breyer.  Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment which was joined by Justice Thomas.

In Jimenez, the Court addresses AEDPA's 1 year limitation under 28 USC 2244(d) in a case where a defendant is granted an out-of-time appeal by a state court.  The Court holds that where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state habeas proceedings, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas review, his judgment is not "final" for purposes of 28 USC 2244(d)(1)(A) until the conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal or the expiration of the time for seeking certiorari review of that appeal.  Once a state court reopens direct review of a conviction, the conviction is no longer final for 2244(d)(1)(A) purposes.  Justice Thomas authored the unanimous opinion.

Last week the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bell v. Kelly.  Today the Court dismissed the case after finding that cert. had been improvidently granted.  The case concerned the degree of deference that federal habeas coruts must give to state court findings.

Monday, November 10

US Supreme Court orders released (no new cert grants were ordered)

10:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in Chambers v. United States (whether failure to report to prison is a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminals Act).

11:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Hayes (whether federal gun laws require a domestic relationship between an attacker and victim to qualify as a misdemeanor crime of "domestic violence").

1:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (whether the Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants a right to cross-examine forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports for use in prosecution).

 

Tuesday, November 11

Holiday.  Courts closed.

 

Wednesday, November 12

10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Jeffries v. State

11:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Courtesy Cars v. Morgan

1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Perez-Marquez v. State

United States Supreme Court oral argument in Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum (whether donated monuments displayed in public parks qualify as private speech, thus requiring municipalities to display monuments from all other donors).

United States Supreme Court oral argument in Bell v. Kelly (whether the deferential standard in the federal habeas corpus statute should be applied to claims a state court did not conisder).

 

 

Thursday, November 13

Nevada Supreme Court opinion release day

10:00 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Anderson v. Ruppco Inc.

10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Madruga v. Aguilar

1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Fields v. State

 

Friday, November 14

10:00 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Ferguson v. Landmark Homes

10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in State Engineer v. Morris Delee Revocable Trust

11:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Cadle Co. II vs. Fountain

1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Las Vegas Paving v. Nevada Power