Opinion ID: 197064
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Standard Governing the Writ

Text: 24 In April of 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-132, Title I, § 104, 110 Stat. 1219, changed the standard governing the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. The new language states that 25 (d) [a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-- 26 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 27 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The district court's action preceded enactment of the new standard, and so it reviewed Koonce's petition under the old standard, i.e., whether the petitioner was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Appellee argues that, notwithstanding the district court's use of the prior statute, the new standard applies here. However, we need not determine which standard applies in this context, as we find that under either statute Koonce's petition must fail.