Opinion ID: 783160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standards for Habeas Corpus Review of State Convictions: The Statutory Scheme Examined.

Text: 34 We review de novo a district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus to a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. Loliscio v. Goord, 263 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir.2001). The standard for review by a district court in the first instance has been established by an Act of Congress, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The statute provides as follows: 35 An 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 — 36 (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 37 (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. 38 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 39 The deferential review of state court judgments established by the statutory scheme is dependent on the federal claim having been adjudicated on the merits by the state court. If there is no such adjudication, the deferential standard does not apply, and we apply the pre-AEDPA standards, and review de novo the state court disposition of the petitioner's federal constitutional claims. Aparicio v. Artuz, 269 F.3d 78, 93 (2d Cir.2001). A petitioner's federal constitutional claim is adjudicated on the merits in state court when the state court disposes of the claim on the merits and reduces its disposition to judgment. See Norde v. Keane, 294 F.3d 401, 410 (2d Cir.2002). The issue of whether the claim has been disposed of on the merits by a state court includes an inquiry into: (1) what the state courts have done in similar cases; (2) whether the history of the case suggests that the state court was aware of any ground for not adjudicating the case on the merits; and (3) whether the state court's opinion suggests reliance upon procedural grounds rather than a determination on the merits. Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303, 314 (2d Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). 40