Opinion ID: 787760
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ring v. Arizona.

Text: 5 As is well known by now, in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), the Supreme Court determined that a capital sentencing scheme wherein the judge decides aggravating facts without a jury is unconstitutional. Id. at 609, 122 S.Ct. at 2443. Leavitt asserts that Ring is retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review, but the Supreme Court has declared otherwise. See Schriro v. Summerlin, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 2526, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). Thus, this claim must fail. 6 (2) We revoke the last sentence of part VIII, which appears at slip op. 7829(694) and substitute the following in its place: 7 Therefore, we remand these ineffective assistance of counsel issues to the district court for further proceedings. 8 (3) We revoke the CONCLUSION, which appears at slip op. 7829(694), including footnote 41 thereof, and substitute the following in its place: