Document: 538 U.S. 202 JEANNE WOODFORD, WARDEN, PETITIONERv.ROBERT FREDERICK GARCEAU. No. 01-1862. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 21, 2003. Decided March 25, Thomas, J., delivered the opinion Court, in which Rehnquist, C. and Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, JJ., joined. O'Connor, filed an concurring judgment. Souter, a dissenting opinion, Ginsburg Breyer, JUSTICE THOMAS Court. 1 In Lindh v. Murphy, 521 320 (1997), we held that amendments made to chapter 153 Title 28 States Code by Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, do not apply cases pending federal court on April 24, — AEDPA's effective date. this case consider when capital habeas becomes "pending" for purposes rule announced Lindh. 2 * Respondent Robert Garceau brutally killed his girlfriend Maureen Bautista her 14-year-old son, Telesforo Bautista. He was convicted first-degree murder sentenced death. The California affirmed respondent's conviction sentence, People Garceau, 6 Cal.4th 140, 862 P.2d 664 (1993), denied merits petition state postconviction relief. We certiorari. 513 848 (1994). 3 On May 12, 1995, respondent motion appointment counsel application stay execution District Eastern California. promptly issued 45-day execution. June 26, appointed extended another 120 days. August 1, State vacate stay, part because had failed file "specification nonfrivolous issues," as required local rules. Brief 2. cured defect, and, October 13, State's ordered be within nine months. relief July 2, 1996. 4 Although after date, following Circuit precedent, concluded subject AEDPA. See App. Pet. Cert. 31-32 (citing Lindh, supra; Calderon Dist. Ct. Central Cal., 163 F.3d 530, 540 (CA9 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 526 1060 (1999)). merits, however, ruled entitled Appeals Ninth reversed. Like AEDPA does application. 275 769, 772, n. (2001). Unlike granted reasons are relevant our discussion here. Id., at 777-778. 536 990 II 5 As already noted, new provisions date became effective. no occasion elaborate precise time petitioner's been prior supra, 323 (noting petitioner 9, 1992). Since Courts have divided question whether applies if applicant sought or (or both) Five applies, see, e.g., Isaacs Head, 300 1232, 1245-1246 (CA11 2002); Moore Gibson, 195 1152, 1160-1163 (CA10 1999); Gosier Welborn, 175 504, 506 (CA7 Williams Coyle, 167 1036, 1037-1040 (CA6 Cain, 125 269, 273-274 (CA5 1997), while has it not, Calderon, 539-540. For stated below, agree with majority Appeals. Congress enacted reduce delays criminal sentences, particularly cases, see Taylor, 529 362, 386 (2000) (opinion J.) ("Congress wished curb delays, prevent `retrials' habeas, give effect convictions extent possible under law"); also id., 404 (majority opinion), "to further principles comity, finality, federalism," 420, 436 (2000). One methods used advance these objectives adoption amended U.S.C. § 2254(d). Williams, U.S., ("It cannot disputed viewed 2254(d)(1) important means its goals reform would achieved"). explained before, 2254(d) places "new constraint[s] power grant prisoner's writ corpus respect claims adjudicated court." 412. Our make clear general particular focus large measure revising standards evaluating 412-413; 329 "amended . governs affecting entitlement relief"); Early Packer, 537 ___ (2002) (per curiam) (applying standards); Woodford Visciotti, (same). 7 Because heavy emphasis governing review application, interpret view emphasis, See, Holman Gilmore, 126 876, 880 1997) ("[T]he is itself petition, call even permit) decision merits. And `the merits' all about"); Isaacs, 1245 (same); 1040 Thus, prisoner turns what before If, seeking adjudication claims, then apply. Otherwise, should reviewed AEDPA, other filings same such as, example, request were presented 8 A supports conclusion. instance, 2254(e)(1) provides that, "[i]n proceeding instituted person custody pursuant judgment court, determination factual issue shall presumed correct." (Emphasis added.) Under Circuit's view, presumption established rarely case. held, can commenced (and, therefore, may become Lindh) filing 2254(e)(1), terms only "instituted" "an corpus," any prisoners whose first stay. This applicable those who did need seek text, contains indication intended limited scope. Nor reasonable believe meant avoid stringent requirements simply actual Other likewise support view. 2241(d) (indicating triggered except "application corpus"); 2244(a) (providing judges "entertain" second successive corpus" provided statute). 9 Finally, conclusion reinforced procedural rules 2254 cases. Federal Rule Civil Procedure explains "[a] civil action complaint." Rules context suits they inconsistent Habeas Corpus Rules. 11; Fed. Civ. Proc. 81(a)(2); Pitchess Davis, 421 482, 489 (1975) curiam). Nothing contradicts 3. logical conclusion, suit begins equivalent complaint ordinary III 10 asks us determine scope looking some 154 28. But task 153; thus, phrasing inapposite inquiry 11 Moreover, argument holding McFarland Scott, 512 849 (1994), inform here unpersuasive. To begin with, involved interpretation 2251, 2254, And, recognized, F.3d, 1242-1246 (collecting discussing authorities), Court's ruling must understood light concern protect right contained 18 848(q)(4)(B). McFarland, 855 ("This one gives meaning statute practical matter"); 856 ("Requiring indigent proceed without order obtain thus expose him substantial risk never heard legislated against legal backdrop adopting 848(q)(4)(B), safely assume intend express requirement defeated manner"); 857 ("Even McFarland's found attorney represent him, meaningless unless stayed"). carry day respondent. 12 Similarly, reliance Hohn States, 524 236 (1998), misplaced. Hohn, considered jurisdiction appeals' denial certificate appealability (COA). answer focused text 1254, "confines '[c]ases in' courts appeals." 241 Nixon Fitzgerald, 457 731, 741-742 (1982)). COA constituted provide all-purpose definition term "case." might began "case" could appeal, Gosier, ("[A] `case' sense appellate be, Court)"), says nothing about suffices create rule. 13 14 sum, hold applying until court. amendments.1 Accordingly, reverse remand proceedings consistent opinion.2 15 It so ordered. Notes: Justice O'Connor contends misapplied test labeled "Specification Non-Frivolous Issues" placed themerits Post, judgment). That so. Respondent's plainly "[b]ased preliminary materials, believes constitutional issues exist among raised [Garceau's] behalf corpus." Opposition 227 (emphasis added). import language place decision. Rather, document alerted future. Indeed, eventually numerous mentioned Issues." certiorari, decline 16 O'CONNOR, 17 today holds post-Antiterrorism (AEDPA) version Garceau's I holding. concur judgment, my reasoning broader than necessary. states "the apply." Ante, 4. facts case, own concedes, ante, pre-AEDPA setting forth claims. After counsel, leave stayed Over objection State, identified non-frivolous appropriate. difficult how "merits" front time, well 19 addition, adequately distinguish dissented from recognize doctrine stare decisis most compelling" confronts "a pure statutory construction." Hilton South Carolina Public Railways Comm'n, 502 197, 205 (1991). here, appears adopt dissent McFarland. Compare ("Finally, cases") (O'Connor, part) ("The confirm conclusion"). underpinnings accept necessary trigger beginning proceeding. 2262. 20 agree, post-AEDPA answer. Both concerned applications corpus. 2254(a) thereof, circuit judge, district entertain ." added)) (1994 ed.) former ("In ."). although preapplication sufficient permit 2251 engage activity related pre- always spoken "applications," files 21 acknowledge read say none including 2254. statements If applied corpus, different. (a "before whom pending, may, proceeding") correctly points out, 4-5, once 2254(a). §§ 2254(b)(1), 2254(b)(2), 2254(d), 2254(e)(1). 22 follow law, nor provision, receive benefit existed itself. interest specifically acknowledged then-existing less-restrictive "proceeding ed.). 23 claim. 24 SOUTER, GINSBURG BREYER join, dissenting. 25 modifying identify govern, certain special 320, 326 statute's cover Here take step deciding 26 focuses alone, fair enough where encounter occurs entered 848(b)(4)(B), subsequently lawyer petitioned preparing petition. therefore think calls principle together, Coit Independence Joint Venture FSLIC, 561, 573 (1989) Brown Duchesne, How. 183, 194 (1857)). amendment ought 2251. 27 When prepare litigate seeks will point condition continuation assessment substantiality expects raise yet filed, consideration governed court's exercise during transition earlier later makes given takes account into consideration. took initial look anticipated 2254; appropriate merit claim earlier, existing law. consequence, law throughout. There much point, all, relying judge rely Otherwise staying hopeless later, more restrictive, law; conversely, forcing stint responsible preparation, assure throughout prospects success 29 occurred six months amendment's accordingly respectfully dissent.

Category: 0