Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 163

2 

CORCORAN  v.  LEVENHAGEN 

Per Curiam 

Per Curiam. 
An Indiana jury convicted Joseph Corcoran of four counts 
of murder.  Corcoran was sentenced to death.  After Corco­
ran’s  challenges  to  his  sentence  in  the  Indiana  courts  failed, 
he sought federal habeas relief.  Corcoran argued in his fed­
eral  habeas  petition  that:  (1)  the  Indiana  trial  court  com­
mitted  various  errors  at  the  sentencing  phase;  (2)  his  sen­
tence  violated  the  Sixth  Amendment;  (3)  Indiana’s  capital 
sentencing  statute  was  unconstitutional;  (4)  the  prosecution 
committed  misconduct  at  sentencing;  and  (5)  he  should  not 
be  executed  because  he  suffers  from  a  mental  illness.  See 
Corcoran  v.  Buss,  483  F.  Supp.  2d  709,  719,  726  (ND  Ind. 
2007).  The  District  Court  granted  habeas  relief  on  Corco­
ran’s claim of a Sixth Amendment violation, and ordered the 
state  courts  to  resentence  Corcoran  to  a  penalty  other  than 
death.  Id., at 725–726.  The District Court did not address 
Corcoran’s  other  arguments  relating  to  his  sentence,  noting 
that they were “rendered moot” by the order that Corcoran 
be  resentenced  because  of  the  Sixth  Amendment  violation. 
Id., at 734. 

The  Seventh  Circuit  reversed  the  District  Court’s  Sixth 
Amendment  ruling.  Corcoran  v.  Buss,  551  F.  3d  703,  712, 
714 (2008).  Then, without mentioning Corcoran’s other sen­
tencing claims, the Seventh Circuit remanded “with instruc­
tions to deny the writ,” stating that “Indiana is at liberty to 
reinstate the death penalty.”  Id., at 714.  Corcoran sought 
rehearing,  arguing  that  the  Court  of  Appeals  should  have 
allowed the District Court to consider his additional attacks 
on  his  sentence.  But  the  Court  of  Appeals  denied  rehear­
ing, again without referring to Corcoran’s undecided claims. 
We now grant certiorari and hold that the Seventh Circuit 
erred  in  disposing  of  Corcoran’s  other  claims  without  expla­
nation of any sort.  The Seventh Circuit should have permit­
ted  the  District  Court  to  consider  Corcoran’s  unresolved 
challenges  to  his  death  sentence  on  remand,  or  should  have 
itself explained why such consideration was unnecessary.