Document: 541 U.S. 386 DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISIONv.HALEY. No. 02-1824. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 2, 2004. Decided May 3, Respondent was charged with and convicted felony theft. Based on two prior convictions, he also as a habitual offender. Under Texas' offender statute, defendant is subject to sentence 2 20 years if (1) has (2) the conviction for first offense became final before commission second. Texas law requires State prove allegations jury beyond reasonable doubt at separate penalty hearing. The here respondent charge, judge sentenced him 16½ years. As it turned out, evidence presented phase showed that had committed his second three days final, meaning not eligible enhancement. No one, including defense counsel, noted discrepancy—either trial or direct appeal. raised issue in request state postconviction relief, arguing hearing insufficient support conviction. court rejected sufficiency claim procedural grounds, because earlier; likewise respondent's counsel been ineffective failing object. renewed assistance claims subsequent federal habeas application. Conceding not, fact, enhancement, nevertheless argued procedurally defaulted claim. District excused default actually innocent enhanced sentence; thus did reach Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding actual innocence exception applies noncapital sentencing procedures involving career offenders offenders. Held: A faced innocence, whether crime charged, must address all nondefaulted comparable relief other grounds cause excuse default. Normally, will entertain constitutional petition absent showing prejudice However, this recognizes narrow general rule when applicant can demonstrate substantive offense, Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478, 496, or, capital context, aggravating circumstances rendering inmate death penalty, Sawyer Whitley, 505 333. declines answer question here, should be extended error, failed consider alternative urged by respondent. This avoidance principle implicit Carrier itself, where expressed confidence that, "for most part, `victims fundamental miscarriage justice meet cause-and-prejudice standard,'" S., 495-496, particularly given availability claims, id., 496. Petitioner concedes viable significant Success merits would give seeks, i. e., resentencing, provide many threshold legal questions often accompanying additional reason restraint. For instance, raises In re Winship, 397 358—that each element criminal proved doubt—should proof convictions used recidivist enhancements. Not involve questions, but, case illustrates, such are likely present equally difficult regarding scope itself. Pp. 392-396. 306 F. 3d 257, vacated remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C. SCALIA, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, KENNEDY SOUTER, joined, post, p. 396. KENNEDY, 399. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor General Texas, petitioner. With briefs were Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Barry McBee, First Assistant Danica L. Milios, General. 3 Matthew D. Roberts States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Olson, Wray, Deputy Dreeben. 4 Eric M. Albritton, appointment 540 1044, Jeffrey Bleich.* 5 JUSTICE O'CONNOR Court. 6 Out respect finality, comity, orderly administration justice, corpus We have recognized alleged error resulted one who underlying penalty. 478 (1986); 333 (1992). us an asserts "actual innocence" sentence. Because respondent, might obviate any need question, we vacate judgment remand. 7 * 1997, Michael Wayne Haley arrested after stealing calculator from local Wal-Mart attempting exchange merchandise. with, found guilty of, theft property valued less than $1,500, which, already "state jail felony" punishable maximum prison. App. 8; Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (Supp. 2004). indictment first—a 1991 delivery amphetamine—"became commission" second—a 1992 robbery. 9. timing significant: only "has previously finally felonies, previous occurred having become . shall punished second-degree felony." 12.42(a)(2) (emphasis added). degree carries minimum 12.33(a) (2003). 8 provides bifurcated trials cases. Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.07, (Vernon Supp. If State, hearing, doubt. Ibid. During trial, introduced records amphetamine October 18, 1991, attempted robbery September 9, 1992. record conviction, however, 15, 1991— final. Neither prosecutor, nor attorney, witness tendered authenticate records, judge, jury, noticed 3-day discrepancy. Indeed, attorney chose cross-examine State's put evidence. 9 returned verdict charge recommended years; followed recommendation. appealed. Appellate mention discrepancy challenge penalty-phase Appeals affirmed Criminal refused discretionary review. 10 thereafter sought time ineligible enhancement based 83, 87-88. it, required law, either Id., 107, 108. related claim, saying "counsel ineffective" object appeal summarily denied 109. 11 August 2000, timely pro se application writ pursuant 28 2254, renewing claims. 110, 118-119; 122, 124, 126-127. conceded "correct assertion paragraphs do satisfy section Code." 132, 140. Rather agree raise 142-144. Magistrate Judge, whom referred, excusing granting "`actually innocent' Director, Dept. Justice, Institutions Div., Civ. 6:00cv518 (ED Tex., Sept. 13, 2001), 10, Pet. Cert. 49a (citing Sones Hargett, 61 410, 419 (CA5 1995)). she erroneous Judge challenges. 50a-52a. adopted Judge's report, granted application, ordered resentence "without improper enhancement." 36a-37a (Oct. 27, 2001). 12 narrowly "applies offender." Cockrell, 264 (2002). joined Fourth extend allegedly enhancements factual error: "[T]o broaden further `swallow' `cause portion requirement' `would conflict squarely authority indicating generally more exist default.'" 266 (quoting Mikalajunas, 186 490, 494-495 (CA4 1999)). Finding satisfied, panel then otherwise so doing, assumed challenges cognizable under Jackson Virginia, 443 307 (1979). 3d, 266-267 French Estelle, 692 2d 1021, 1024-1025 1982)). 13 Circuit's decision exacerbated growing divergence Courts context. Compare Embrey Hershberger, 131 739 (CA8 1997) (en banc) (no error); Reid Oklahoma, 101 628 (CA10 1996) (same), Spence Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 219 162 (CA2 2000) (actual context finding predicate act forming basis enhancement), supra relates enhancement). certiorari, 945 (2003), now II 14 doctrine, like abuse "refers complex evolving body equitable principles informed controlled historical usage, statutory developments, judicial decisions." McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 489 (1991). corollary statute's exhaustion requirement, doctrine its roots courts disturb judgments adequate independent grounds. Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 81 (1977); Brown Allen, 344 443, 486-487 (1953). But, while disposition strips certiorari jurisdiction review court's judgment, strong prudential reason, grounded "considerations comity concerns justice," pass upon Francis Henderson, 425 536, 538-539 (1976); see Fay Noia, 372 391, 399 (1963) ("[T]he defaults held constitute ground barring limit power statute"). That being case, bar Wainwright, supra, 87. requirement shows due regard States' finality interests ensuring "fundamental fairness [remains] central concern corpus." Strickland Washington, 466 668, 697 (1984). 15 standard perfect safeguard against miscarriages justice. (1986), violation "probably resulted" "actually innocent" offense. 496; accord, Schlup Delo, 513 298 (1995). subsequently Acknowledging concept "`actual innocence'" translate neatly into limited cases could show "by clear convincing but no juror petitioner applicable law." 336. 16 asked challenging error. decline posture instead hold 17 standard.'" 495-496 Engle Isaac, 456 135 (1982)). Our bolstered claims—either freestanding relief—to existence safeguards, observed, "may properly inform Court's determining `[w]hat standards govern exercise discretion' claims." 496 Reed Ross, 468 1, (1984)). 18 oral argument "significant" Tr. Oral Arg. ("[W]e point there very counsel"); (agreeing "not [to] impediment" consideration remand). seeks — resentencing. It 488. 19 Contrary dissent's view, (opinion J.), precisely various exceptions judge-made rules their stewards restraint, adding expanding them necessary. To license district riddle ad hoc whenever they perceive "clear" departure expedient. Such approach, restraint unhappy effect prolonging pendency applications new tested appeals. And assured seek reincarcerate during 52 willing allow litigated proceeding [respondent]"), negative consequences our remand minimal. While remedies alone sufficient justification avoidance, citing (1979), bring through gateway But hook 358 (1970), process Winship's protections Almendarez-Torres States, 523 224 (1998); Apprendi New Jersey, 530 466, 488-490 (2000) (reserving validity Almendarez-Torres); Monge California, 524 721, 734 (1998) (Double Jeopardy Clause does preclude retrial contends overruled alternative, apply statute find fact sequential. Brief 30-31. These simply away dissent, Jackson, Thompson Louisville, 362 199 (1960)), avoided possible. 21 sure, issues. Even so, briefing illustrate, Whether what extent extends just example. vacated, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 22 ordered. Notes: ofamici reversal Illinois et al. Lisa Madigan, Illinois, Gary Feinerman, Linda Woloshin Domenica A. Osterberger, Attorneys Dan Schweitzer, respective follows: Bill Pryor Alabama, Terry Goddard Arizona, Mike Moore Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Jon Bruning Nebraska, Jim Petro Ohio, Drew Edmondson Hardy Myers Oregon, Lawrence E. Long South Dakota, Mark Shurtleff Utah, Patrick J. Crank Wyoming. Briefs amici affirmance Zachary Carter James Orenstein Alison Tucher; Liebman Edward DuMont. 23 SOUTER join, dissenting. 24 unending search symmetry judges forget about simple case. 25 calculator. treated felony," jail. 12.35(a) result congeries mistakes made erroneously consequently received penitentiary. qualify 16-year imposed error.1 served far excess 2-year authorizes crime. 26 Because, parties agree, offender, follows inexorably law. (1960); clearly concededly imposition unauthorized sentence, "victim 91 (1977), entitled immediate unconditional release. 27 concluded relief. word provision Federal Rules Procedure conclusion. contrary determination rests entirely own invention. invented jurisprudence prisoner establish "cause prejudice" overcoming default, unquestionably recognize unusual one. standard, explained purpose providing "an guarantee" prevent adjudicating absence adjudication victim justice." since inadequate protect "must yield imperative correcting fundamentally unjust incarceration." (1982). 29 some uncertainty incarcerated unjustly, make sense require pursue avenues deciding claim.2 universally acknowledged incarceration unauthorized. manifest. Since "imperative incarceration" lead issuance regardless outcome inquiry, ruling today needlessly postpones perversely prolongs injustice designed prevent. 30 decided oppose grant even prison authorized, forgotten overriding "obligation serve Agurs, 427 97, 111 (KENNEDY, dissenting). surely fault. attempt refine boundaries lost sight basic why "writ indisputably holds honored position jurisprudence." Engle, 126. Habeas is, centuries been, "bulwark violate fairness." (internal quotation marks omitted). Fundamental dictate unusually 31 I respectfully dissent. 4; ("[I]t's almost school hypothetical, clean") always easy discern difference between "constitutional call reliability guilt," applies, innocent," failure excused,Murray reviewing proceed caution. type caution plainly unwarranted unlawful risk entertaining applicant's encroachment underlie doctrine. 32 33 reasons STEVENS sets forth, join comment concerning larger obligation officials know individual commit. 34 months violating concede They theft, Yet, despite crime, come opposing Haley's wish send back 35 rigors penal system thought mitigated discretion those enforce See, e. g., Prosecutor, Am. Inst. & (1940-1941). clemency same function. Among benign too-often ignored objects, correct injustices ordinary seems unable unwilling consider. mechanisms out promise mercy foreign system. 36 mitigating elements seem played role Executive inspire little sworn fight choose ignore it. Perhaps say mere technicality, miss point. society devoted cannot shrugged aside minor detail. 37 may convenient mechanism vindicate important principle. Beyond greater interest knowing reincarcerated me perform duty place.

Category: 0