Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-10681/USCOURTS-ca11-14-10681-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 

---

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10681

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00489-MTT

MARION WILSON, JR.,

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus

WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC PRISON, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(November 15, 2016)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Upon the majority vote of the judges in this Court in active service, on July 

30, 2015, this Court vacated this panel’s prior opinion and granted rehearing en 

banc. We concluded that when reviewing a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus, federal courts need not “look through” a summary decision on the 

USCA11 Case: 14-10681 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 1 of 2
2

merits to review the reasoning of the state trial court. Wilson v. Warden, Ga. 

Diagnostic Prison, 834 F.3d 1227, 1230 (11th Cir. 2016). We also held that the

summary denial of a certificate of probable cause to appeal by the Supreme Court 

of Georgia was an adjudication on the merits for purposes of our review. Id. at 

1235. 

The en banc Court remanded to the panel all outstanding issues in this 

appeal, and we ordered and received supplemental briefing from the parties. The 

original panel opinion reviewed the “one-line decision of the Supreme Court of 

Georgia denying Wilson’s certificate of probable cause . . . because it is the final 

decision on the merits.” Wilson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 774 F.3d 671, 

678 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), reh’g en banc granted, op. 

vacated, No. 14-10681 (11th Cir. July 30, 2015). And the panel “[could] not say 

that the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia to deny Wilson’s petition . . .

‘was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’” Id. at 681 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). Because the panel opinion reviewed the correct 

state-court decision and the remaining issues have not changed, we reinstate the 

original panel opinion and affirm the denial of Wilson’s petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-10681 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 2 of 2