Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-679_f2bh.pdf
Page Number: 8

8 

SHOOP v. CASSANO 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

continue to want counsel as the trial loomed. 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision was one 
over which fairminded jurists could disagree.  That is suffi-
cient to preclude habeas relief under AEDPA. 

B 
The Court of Appeals erred when it held otherwise.  To 
begin, the Court of Appeals plainly erred when it declined 
to  apply  AEDPA  deference  because,  in  its  view,  the  Su-
preme Court of Ohio had “ ‘inadvertently overlooked’ ” Cas-
sano’s May 1998 dueling motions.  1 F. 4th, at 468 (quoting 
Williams, 568 U. S., at 303).  The Court of Appeals pointed 
to two reasons for its decision.  First, because the Supreme
Court of Ohio “explicitly address[ed] whether Cassano in-
voked his right to self-representation on either September 
25, 1998 or April 23, 1999,” and did not as explicitly address 
the May 1998 motions, the Court of Appeals thought that
the  state  court  must  have  inadvertently  overlooked  those 
motions.    1  F.  4th,  at  468.    Second,  the  Court  of  Appeals
observed that the Supreme Court of Ohio “referred to Cas-
sano’s September 25, 1998 motion as the ‘only written mo-
tion’  and  his  statements  at  the  April  23,  1999  hearing  as
the only time he ‘mention[ed] that he wanted to represent
himself.’ ”  Ibid. (quoting Cassano, 96 Ohio St. 3d, at 100, 
772 N. E. 2d, at 91).

Even assuming that the Supreme Court of Ohio did not 
expressly address Cassano’s  Faretta  claim, but see supra,
at 5–6, the Court of Appeals did not properly apply the pre-
sumption of merits adjudication.  As stated above, that pre-
sumption  is  rebutted  only  by  “evidence  lead[ing]  very 
clearly to the conclusion that [the] federal claim was inad-
vertently overlooked in state court.”  Williams, 568 U. S., at 
303  (emphasis  added).    Simply  “issu[ing]  an  opinion  that 
addresses  some  issues  but  does  not  expressly  address  [a]
federal claim in question” cannot alone be evidence leading 
“very clearly” to the conclusion that the federal claim was