Opinion ID: 77490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion for Leave to file a Successive Habeas Corpus Petition

Text: 3 Section 2244(b) directs Courts of Appeal to authorize the filing of a second habeas corpus application only if the applicant makes a prima facie showing that one of two specific requirements has been satisfied. Section 2244(b) provides that: 4 (1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. 5 (2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless— 6 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 7 (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 8 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) & (2). 9 Hutcherson raises two claims in his Application for Leave to file a Successive Habeas Petition. First, Hutcherson contends that the Alabama Death Penalty Act is unconstitutional and does not comport with the Supreme Court's dictates set forth in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Hutcherson previously raised this ground for relief in his first habeas corpus petition. Moreover, Hutcherson admits in his application that this ground for relief does not rely on a new rule of law or on newly discovered evidence. See § 2244(b)(2). Accordingly, this claim for relief is subject to dismissal. 10 Hutcherson's second claim for relief, ineffective assistance of counsel, is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005). Hutcherson claims that the Court announced a new rule in Rompilla with respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hutcherson is incorrect. The Court's decision in Rompilla was another interpretation of the Court's long-standing principles set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). It did not set forth a new rule of law. Furthermore, Rompilla was decided in June 2005, several months before the district court denied Hutcherson's first habeas petition. See Hutcherson v. Gulliver, Civil Action No. 04-514-CG-C, 2005 WL 3348856 (S.D.Ala.). Thus, this ground for relief was available to Hutcherson during the pending of his first federal habeas petition. 11 Because we conclude that Hutcherson has failed to make the necessary showing under either § 2244(b)(2)(A) or (B), we deny his application for leave to file a successive habeas corpus petition.