Document: 127 S. Ct. 2022 (2007) Don ROPER, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Petitioner, v. William WEAVER. No. 06-313. Supreme Court of United States. May 21, 2007. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General Missouri, James R. Layton, State Solicitor, Andrea K. Spillars, Chief Counsel, Stephen D. Hawke, Alana M. Barragan-Scott, Heidi C. Doerhoff, Ronald Ribaudo, Assistant Attorneys General, Jefferson City, MO, for Petitioner. John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Trevor Morrison, Ithaca, NY, Keir Weyble, Columbia, SC, Philip Horwitz, St. Louis, Eric Butts, Charles A. Weiss, Elizabeth Carver, Rogers, Lee Marshall, Wyrsch, Bryan Cave, LLP, Respondent. PER CURIAM. We granted certiorari in this case, 549 U.S. ___, 763, 166 Ed. 2d 590 (2006), to decide whether the Appeals had exceeded its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by setting aside a capital sentence on ground that prosecutor's closing statement was "unfairly inflammatory." Weaver Bowersox, 438 F.3d 832, 841 (C.A.8 2006). Our primary concern Appeals' application more stringent standard review mandated Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996, (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, consistent with our interpretation statute. Cf. Carey Musladin, 649, 482 (2006). are now aware circumstances persuade us dismissal writ is appropriate manner which dispose case. The argument made prosecutor case essentially same as *2023 he two other casesone involved respondent's codefendant. See Shurn Delo, 177 662, 666 1999); Newlon Armontrout, 693 F. Supp. 799 (W.D.Mo.1988), aff'd, 885 F.2d 1328 1989). In each those cases, defendant received death sentence. Also filed petition seeking federal habeas relief before AEDPA's effective date. Federal all three cases. does not question propriety cases because it clear at time, now, AEDPA did apply either them. Respondent argues, following reasons, should govern his either. Like defendants Shurn, respondent date AEDPA. Instead considering claims, however, District sua sponte stayed proceedings, noting indicated intention file Court's state courts' denial postconviction relief. Though recognized required seek from Court, concluded that, if "a prisoner chooses pursue certiorari, must first exhaust remedy filing corpus petition." App. Brief National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers Amicus Curiae 15. Thus, put choice: He could forgo or would be dismissed. moved reconsideration appointment counsel. denied both motions, reiterating view sought premature. When notified been filed, court good promise: It dismissed "without prejudice" refiling "following exhaustion proceedings." Id., 13. took effect, after statute force. Still without an attorney, requested certificate appealability Court. request, opining reasonable jurists disagree petition. 5-6. also notice appeal, construed request rejected.[*] refiled proceedings. Eighth Circuit eventually date, claims evaluated statute's strict review. 241 1024, 1029 (2001). recent decision Lawrence Florida, 1079, ___ L.Ed.2d (2007), conclusively establishes wrong conclude chose clarified "[s]tate ends when courts have finally *2024 resolved relief"even files S.Ct. 1083; see id., - 1083-85 ("[W]e said prisoners need remedies" (citing Fay Noia, 372 391, 435-438, 83 822, 9 837 (1963))). petition, fully exhausted become unexhausted upon certiorari. Because premature, no cause dismiss it. Whether unusual procedural history leads conclusion, colorably contends, simply inapplicable we find unnecessary resolve. Regardless answer question, exercise discretion prevent these virtually identically situated litigants being treated needlessly disparate manner, erroneously pre-AEDPA Accordingly, improvidently granted. so ordered. Justice ROBERTS, concurring result. While I do agree reasons given per curiam discretionary disposition. SCALIA, whom THOMAS ALITO join, dissenting. held Missouri unreasonably applied clearly established precedent concluding certain statements during penalty phase trial rise level due process violation. 839-842 As says, ante, 2022, holding comported 1996 2254(d)(1). briefing, heard hour's argument, question. Yet declines it, dismissing reason has "aware," post-AEDPA only earlier prior 2023. Believing "virtually situated" whose petitions were governed AEDPA, avoid "treat[ing three] ... petition," decided let stand Circuit's flagrant misapplication (and deciding whether) governs Ante, 2024. erred but seems me justification aborting argued previous error affect legal conclusion applies new And once admitted governs, way alter determination *2025 deserves scrutiny. discuss points succession. provides support assertion "colorabl[e]" claim, 2024, erroneous renders Nor respondent. 39, n. 44. am supporting proposition legally equitably entitled evade collateral consequences error. To begin with, any resort equity founder failure appeals decision. 2023, untroubled lack diligence because, further appellate "would almost certainly futile." Ibid. explain basis pessimistic assessment, belief until 1079 (2007). 2023 (describing "clarif[ying]" rule). This quite wrong. apparent 1966. (1963), announced uncertain terms petitioner order state-court remedies. "[N]o less than Hart & Wechsler's Courts System," Massachusetts EPA, 1438, 1455, 17, 167 248 long understood Noia proposition. P. Bator, Meltzer, Mishkin, Shapiro, System 1555 (3d ed.1988); 1446 (4th ed.1996); 1391 (5th ed.2003). Indeed, Lawrence's "clarifi[cation]" consisted nothing citing old pages Noia. Lawrence, supra, 1083-85. logically follows inescapably final disposition pending That mystery 1996. correctly asked reconsider action, instead stay (which proper handle such duplicative filings). 8-11 (hereinafter NACDL Brief). then appeal unsuccessfully appealability. 1-7. (who theretofore shown himself highly capable pro se litigant, undoubtedly availability en banc review) gave up too early. There excuse make use available means Far thinking futile," n., think successful. give special attention (as today's delicate shows), since occurred August 1, months Woodford Garceau, 538 202, 204, 123 1398, 155 363 (2003), obvious refusal correct *2026 subject defendant's renewed restrictions. More fundamentally, even conjecture part rewarded, neither nor principle law entitle him uncorrected judicial Daniels States, 532 374, 382, 121 1578, 149 (2001) "[i]f conviction used enhance longer open direct attack own right failed remedies while they (or unsuccessfully), recourse." (Emphasis added.) If additional jail time went unreversed, surely cannot complain about fact caused entirely restrictions.[*] II having eliminated possibility hence presented) what possible remains canceling grant full briefing argument? disappears, along claim inapplicability, substance contention similar differently "simply [his] he, unlike them, seeks Is happened here rational, fair, differential treatment random one petitioner's action day another after? Would entertain thought sort prosecutor, second them exempted AEDPA? anything, justified here, later randomly determined, likely consequence appeals. affected vague discomforting feeling things different They respect know, then, wrongfully relevance governing discussed Part I, supra) equities might justify bringing naught parties' arguments, Justices' deliberations, But makes wasteful particularly perverse fault know wrongful earlier. Before plenary review, never *2027 Circuit. Appellee Bowersox Weaver, 99-3462, pp. xvii-xix; Appellee/Cross-Appellant 03-2880 et al., p. 7. And, significantly, remained completely silent brief opposition, despite obligation raise issue Rule 15.2. merits brief, (if can called that) consists sentences explaining followed conclusory assertion, buried footnote 44 page 39. Respondent's delayed invocation sanctioned; rewarded. Had raised specious inapplicability timely opportunity blow out water. calculus through dumb luck, tardiness succeeded confounding promulgated 15.2 precisely prohibit sandbaggingand ill effects minimal quality decisionmaking, perfectly demonstrated counsel profit their flouting Rules. * thus argument. convinced beyond doubt reverse judgment A postscript warranted light greatest harm done cancellation will retry murder decades original trialthough enough. leaves grossly books. (That precedent, way, explained awayas perhaps opinion canas product law-distorting compassion wronged action. noted earlier, informed presumably really believes applied.) Other warned rare manifestation clemency unrestrained law. well advised unto just AEDPA: ignore For foregoing respectfully dissent. NOTES [*] rehearing Appeals, Pursuit futile. Of course, some novel exists, why waived, infra, 2026-2027.

Category: 0