Document: Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DEBORAH K. JOHNSON, WARDEN v. DONNA KAY LEE ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 15–789. Decided May 31, 2016 PER CURIAM. Federal habeas courts generally refuse to hear claims “defaulted . in state court pursuant an independent and adequate procedural rule.” Coleman Thomp- son, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). State rules count as “ade- quate” if they are “firmly established regularly fol- lowed.” Walker Martin, 562 307, 316 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Like all States, Cali- fornia requires criminal defendants raise available on direct appeal. Under the so-called “Dixon bar,” a defendant procedurally defaults claim raised for first time collateral review he could have it earlier See In re Dixon, 41 Cal. 2d 756, 759, 264 P.2d 513, 514 (1953). Yet, this case, Ninth Circuit held that Dixon bar is inadequate fed- eral review. Because California’s longstanding, oft-cited, shared by across Nation, Court now summarily reverses Circuit’s judgment. I Respondent Donna Kay Lee her boyfriend Paul Carasi stabbed death Carasi’s mother his ex- girlfriend. A California jury convicted pair of two counts each first-degree murder. received sentence, sentence life without possibility parole. June 1999, unsuccessfully four After 2 JOHNSON appellate affirmed, skipped postconviction filed federal petition at issue. 28 C. §2254(a). The mostly new failed had not exhausted state-court remedies, however, District temporarily stayed proceedings allow pursue petition. Supreme denied Lee’s summary order citing Dixon. Having returned litigate dismissed defaulted. Then, appeal, chal- lenged bar’s adequacy. brief, pre- sented small sample Court’s denials single day about six months after default. claimed out 210 sum- mary December 21, cite 9 cases where should been applied. instead nine petitions any cita- tion all. view, these missing citations proved inconsistently applied bar. Without evaluating evidence, reversed remanded “to permit Warden submit evidence contrary, consideration district instance.” Jacquez, 406 Fed. Appx. 148, 150 (2010). On remand, warden submitted study analyzing more than 4,700 during nearly 2-year period around From August 1998 2000, showed, cited approximately 12% denials—more 500 times. light adequate. again reversed. 788 3 F. 3d 1124 (2015). 1-day inadequacy, held, because “failure applies reflects [its] irregular application.” F.3d, 1130. general citation rate nothing, reasoned, “d[id] purport show how many applied.” Id., 1133. “baseline number” warden’s was “entirely insufficient” prove Dixon’s II decision profoundly misapprehends what makes “adequate.” That question matter law. Kemna, 534 362, 375 (2002). “To qualify ‘adequate’ proce- dural ground,” capable barring review, “a rule must be ‘firmly lowed.’ ” supra, (quoting Beard Kindler, 558 53, 60 (2009)). satisfies both adequacy criteria. It established” because, decades before 1999 default, warned plain terms that, absent “special circumstances,” “will lie errors been, but were not, upon timely appeal from judgment conviction.” P. 2d, 514. And Su- preme eliminated arguable ambiguity surround- ing reaffirming decided Harris, 5 4th 813, 825, n. 3, 829–841, 855 391, 395, 398–407 (1993); Robbins, 18 770, 814–815, 34, 959 311, 340–341, 34 (1998). repeated tions also “regularly followed.” Mar- 4 tin recently another bar— requiring prisoners file promptly—met requirement “[e]ach year, denies hundreds citing” timeliness rule. U.S., 318. same goes Nine purportedly miss- orders hardly support inference inconsistency. Dugger Adams, 489 401, 410, 6 (1989) (holding Florida its similar “consistently regularly” despite “ad- dress[ing] merits several raising [new] review”). Indeed, denials. None ignored grant relief, so there no sign Nor unique. ha- beas country follow “The defend- ant who fails barred review.” Sanchez- Llamas Oregon, 548 331, 350–351 (2006). Like- wise, remedies “may used which or trial appeal.” D. Wilkes, Postconviction Remedies Relief Handbook §1:2, p. (2015–2016 ed.). appears every shares some form. Brief Ala- bama et al. Amici Curiae 1, (collecting citations). For such well-established ubiquitous rules, takes few outliers inadequacy. lightly “disregard substantially those we give full force our own courts.” 62. would “[e]ven stranger do with respect place State.” Ibid. Nothing suggests, moreover, apply way disfavors claims. therefore holds qualifies III contrary reasoning unpersuasive inconsistent precedents. Applying may “straightforward” “mechani- ca[l]” task courts. But sim- plicity does imply reflect state- To begin with, since has exceptions, see P.2d, can faulted failing whenever petitioner raises More importantly, need address default reaching merits, nothing. Cf. Bell Cone, 543 447, 451, (2005) ( per curiam) (declin- procedural-default argument); Lambrix Singletary, 520 518, 525 (1997) (explain- “[ j]udicial economy might counsel” bypassing “were easily resolvable against petitioner”). Ordinarily, “procedural jurisdictional matter.” Trest Cain, 522 87, 89 (1997). As result, appropriate analysis case remains within courts’ discretion. Such discretion will often lead “seeming inconsistencies.” 320, 7. superficial tension make inadequate. “[A] ground denying even dis- cretion reach default.” 311; 60–61. attempt get Martin Kindler fails. Appeals distinguished “man- datory” rather discretionary involves discretion-free rule, notwithstanding exceptions involve assumes, deciding, description accu- leave room Even so, little difference between exercised through otherwise part itself. event, ignores assume, defaulted hold lacks merit. accordingly wrong dismiss 500-plus simply reveal potentially implicate already rejected precise reasoning. There, unsuccess- fully argued “[u]se impossible tell why de- cides delayed rejects others untimely.” 319 So too here, “[w]e reason reject [procedural] opt bypass [Dixon] assessment easier path.” By treating incon- sistency, “pose[d] unnecessary dilemma” California. 61. forced choose “finality judgments” burdensome opinion-writing re- quirement. Ibid.; 312–313 (noting “rules staggering 7 number year”); Harrington Richter, 86, 99 (discussing advantages dispositions). “[F]ederal au- thority,” impose mandatory standards courts” price their rules. Johnson Williams, 568 ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., 9). thus fundamentally odds “federalism comity concerns motivate doctrine context.” * “A State’s vital importance orderly administration courts; when permits them readily evaded, under- mines justice system.” Lambrix, 525. Here, permitted prison- ers evade writ certiorari respondent’s motion proceed forma pauperis granted. reversed, further consistent opinion. ordered.

Category: 0