Document: Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHARLES L. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPART- MENT CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER v. EDWARD HAROLD SCHAD ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 12–1084. Decided June 24, 2013 PER CURIAM. Respondent Edward Schad was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After an extensive series state- federal-court proceedings concluded with this Court’s denial respondent’s petitions for certiorari rehearing, the Ninth Circuit declined issue its mandate as normally required by Federal Rule Appel­ late Procedure 41(d)(2)(D). The instead, sua sponte, construed motion stay pending Circuit’s decision in a sepa­ rate en banc case reconsider that it had denied six months earlier. Based on review previously rejected motion, court issued few days before scheduled execution. Even assuming, we did Bell Thompson, 545 U.S. 794 (2005), 41(d)(2)(D) admits any exceptions, not demonstrate exceptional cir­ cumstances justified withholding mandate. As result, conclude failure constituted abuse discretion. I In 1985, Arizona jury found respondent guilty 1978 strangling 74-year-old Lorimer Grove.1 —————— 1A state habeas vacated earlier verdict death 2 RYAN conviction sentence were affirmed direct review, see State Schad, 163 Ariz. 411, 788 P.2d 1162 (1989), Arizona, 501 624 (1991), again sought relief, alleg­ ing his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing failing discover present sufficient mitigating evidence. courts relief. August 1998, federal He raised claim sen­ tencing evi­ dence. District Court request evidentiary hearing new dence, concluding diligent developing evidence during proceed­ ings. Schriro, 454 F. Supp. 2d 897 (Ariz. 2006). alternatively held proffered counsel’s performance deficient. Id., 940–947. part, reversed remanded determine whether develop­ record. Ryan, 606 F.3d 1022 (2010). petitioned certiorari. This granted petition, opinion, further light Cullen Pinholster, 563 ___ (2011). See Ryan On remand, 671 708, 726 subsequently rehearing February 28, 2012. July 10, 2012, filed first directly case. due error instructions. 142 619, 691 710 (1984). 3 asked vacate judgment remand additional Martinez 566 (2012).2 27, then petition October 9, 568 ___, January 7, 2013. ___. returned day requesting addressing interaction between Pinholster Martinez. 1, 2013, “de- clin[ing] indefinite would unduly interfere Arizona’s execution process.” Order 07–99005, Doc. 102, p. 1. But instead issuing mandate, decided sponte con­ strue “as our prior Motion Vacate Judgment Re­ mand Martinez,” which 2. ordered briefing and, divided could establish he received postconviction un­ der Martinez, prejudice underlying merit. 07–99005 (Feb. 26, 2013), App. Pet. Cert. A–13 A–15, WL 791610, *6. Judge Graber dissented based her conclu­ sion show prejudice. A– 16 A–17, *7. set date March 6, prompted file Martinez,566 20, We are aware explanation delay bringing Martinez-based argument attention. 4 panel noting dissent. 4, Circuit. same day, eight judges dis­ senting two separate opinions. 709 855 (2013). application Court, along application, JUS- TICES SCALIA ALITO they grant it. now consider petition. II Appellate sets forth default rule “[t]he appeals must immediately when copy Supreme order denying writ is filed.” (Emphasis added.) reason straightforward: “[T]he entered solely allow time certio­ rari.” Bell, S., 806. Hence, once has there generally no need action from lower courts. ibid. (“[A] discretionary usually signals end litigation”). Tennessee argued “admits so should have date” Appeals notice 803. There resolve because Sixth abused discretion even if authorized after 803–804. here. recognized state-court judgments 5 reviewed proceedings, “finality comity concerns,” principles federalism, demand “accord appropriate level respect to” allowing them be enforced conclude. 812–813. noted, States “ ‘ “interest finality convictions survived within system.” ’ ” 813 (quoting Calderon 523 538, 555 (1998), turn quoting Brecht Abrahamson, 507 635 (1993)). Else­ where, explained ‘the profound interests repose’ attaching appeals” dictate “the power [to withdraw mandate] can exercised only extraordinary circumstances.” Calderon, supra, 550 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Practice §3938, 712 (2d ed. 1996)). Deviation normal procedures “of last resort, reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies.” 550. assuming authority do so, abuses refuses acted unless circumstances justify action. Applying standard extraordi­ nary constitute miscarriage justice. There, capital defendant unsuccessfully alleged been introduce penalty phase trial. 797. made argument. 798. af­ firmed, “placed substantial emphasis” overlooked psychiatrist 800. While stayed issuance while 6 later, writ. Ibid. When Instead, waited five (and until execution) amended opinion va- cated ineffective-assistance- of-counsel claim. 800–801. decision, holding without notifying parties, reliance argument, disregard federal­ ism principles. case, similarly here considered And, over 10 since nearly 7 Martinez.3 Further, doubt arguments presented identical those accepted following Febru­ ary. styled “Motion Remand Additional Proceedings Light Ryan.” (CA9), 88, title suggests, Respondentdid ultimately reinstated more than 3½ decided. developed dence support ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel Here, “pressed eventually adopted Appeals.” These ar- guments pressed strongly “[i]t difficult how . clearer.” 808. full “oppor­ tunity these arguments” but id., 806, “support[s] determination withhold error.” 806–807. presume carefully considers each presents review. 808 (rejecting notion “judges cannot relied upon read past page rehearing”). indica­ tion called revisit already explicitly rejected. Finally, pre­ sent Bell. refusing heavily Beardslee Brown, 393 899, 901 (CA9 2004) (per curiam), Beardslee, precedes months, as­ serts inherent A–3 A–4, *1. Cir­ cuit’s reversed. (citing Thompson 373 688, 691– 692 (2004)). That thus, provides decision. foregoing, hold neglected man­ date. proceed forma pauperis granted. reversed, 8 vacated, instructions proceedings. It ordered.

Category: 1