Opinion ID: 2981880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The AEDPA

Text: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state adjudication: (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 (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 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A federal court may not issue the writ “simply because it concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411 (2000). “[C]learly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” refers to the holdings, rather than dicta, of the decisions of the Supreme Court. Howes v. Fields, --- U.S. ---, 132 S. Ct 1181, 1187 (2012) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 362). A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law where “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law . . . [or] confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a [the opposite] result.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 405. Furthermore, an unreasonable application must be distinguished from an incorrect application. Harrington v. Richter, --- U.S. ---, 131 S. Ct. 770, 785 (2011) (quoting Williams at 410). A state court decision which is merely incorrect, rather than unreasonable, is still entitled to deference by a federal court in a habeas proceeding. Id. As a 6 No. 12-3996 result, the more general the rule, the greater the leeway accorded to a state court’s decision under federal habeas review. Id. at 786. In addition, federal courts have limited authority to review a state court’s interpretations of its own state’s laws; where the highest court in a state has interpreted that state’s statute, a federal court must defer to the state court’s interpretation. Volpe v. Trim, 708 F.3d 688, 697 (6th Cir. 2013). “Thus, for purposes of double jeopardy analysis, once a state court has determined that the state legislature intended cumulative punishments, a federal habeas court must defer to that determination.” Banner v. Davis, 886 F.2d 777, 780 (6th Cir. 1989); accord Volpe, 708 F.3d at 697. The United States Supreme Court has clarified that for the purposes of habeas, the relevant “temporal cutoff” for whether the law is clearly established is “when direct state appeals have been exhausted and a petition for writ of certiorari from [the United States Supreme Court] has become time barred or has been disposed of.”2 Greene v. Fisher, --- U.S. ---, 132 S. Ct. 38, 44 (2011).