Document: 501 U.S. 797 111 S.Ct. 2590 115 L.Ed.2d 706 Eddie S. YLST, Warden, Petitionerv.Owen Duane NUNNEMAKER. No. 90-68. Argued March 19, 1991. Decided June 24, Syllabus Following his California murder conviction, respondent raised a Miranda claim for the first time on direct appeal, in violation of state procedural rule. In affirming State Court Appeal rejected sole basis bar. After successive petitions collateral relief were denied without opinion by Superior and Appeal, filed habeas petition Supreme Court, which or explanation, citing its decisions re Swain Waltreus. When denied, citation, second to it, raising Federal District Court. That court found that default barred federal review, but Appeals reversed this determination. Relying Court's statement Harris v. Reed, 489 255, 263, 109 1038, 1043, 103 308 bars review only when clearly expressly states reliance ground, held "silent denial" respondent's lifted bar imposed review. Held: A court's unexplained denial claims is not sufficient, purposes lift appeal. Pp. 801-806. (a) The erred applying presumption denies explicit grounds, merits are judgment. favor be applied after it has been determined "the relevant decision . fairly appear[s] rest primarily law [is] interwoven with law." Coleman Thompson, --- ----, 2546, ----. P. 802. (b) With respect state-court judgments, courts should apply following presumption: where there one reasoned judgment rejecting claim, later orders upholding same upon ground. If an earlier "fairly law," presumed no invoked subsequent order leaves consequences place. Similarly, last explicitly imposes default, did silently disregard consider merits. This "look-through" may rebutted strong evidence contrary. 803-804. (c) explained was unequivocally rested default. None judgments informative reason denying nor adduced them reached claim. Thus, federal-court unless can establish "cause prejudice" see Murray Carrier, 477 478, 493, 495-496, 106 2639, 2648, 2649-2650, 91 397. On remand, must determine whether he done so. 805-806. 904 F.2d 473, (CA 9 1990) remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. concurring opinion. BLACKMUN, dissenting opinion, MARSHALL STEVENS, Clifford K. San Francisco, Cal., petitioner. Juliana Drous, respondent. Justice SCALIA 1 case we decide corpus lifts so prisoner then have heard proceeding. 2 * 1975, Nunnemaker tried murder. He defense diminished capacity introduced psychiatric testimony support. response, introduced—without objection from respondent—the psychiatrist based custodial interview. jury guilty. appealed, claiming State's inadmissible because interview had preceded warning, Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). addition, alleged attorney's failure object amounted ineffective assistance counsel, other here. 3 affirmed conviction. rejection rule "an cannot appeal." App. 15. See People Bennett, 60 Cal.App.3d 112, 116, 131 Cal.Rptr. 305, 306-307 (1976); Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 461-462, 75 1, 11-12, 450 P.2d 296, (1969). discretionary September 27, 1978. 4 1985, Respondent similar invoking original jurisdiction. also Finally, jurisdiction tribunal. December 3, 1986, citation Swain, 34 300, 304, 209 793, 796 (1949), Waltreus, 62 218, 225, 42 9, 13, 397 1001, 1005 (1965). 82. No explanation accompanied these citations. 5 next writ United States Northern California. dismissed prejudice, ruling clear exhausted remedies all claims.1 Rose Lundy, 455 509, 102 1198, 71 379 (1982). again April 7, 1988. 6 California, ineffectiveness As appealed. Ninth Circuit part. agreed meritless. However, relying our intervening (1989), arising Specifically, "clearly Nunnemaker's default," could say "was rather than underlying claims." 476 (1990). We granted certiorari, 498 384, 112 394 II 7 render as 1978, state-law prevents reaching ordinarily reviewed court. Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 87-88, 97 2497, 2506-2507, 53 594 (1977); 485-492, 2643-2648, (1986). proceeded completing would 8 immortal, however; they expire actions courts. presented particular reaches merits, removes any might otherwise available. Harris, U.S., at 262, S.Ct., 1042-1043. consider, therefore, court, according sought constituted "decision merits" sufficient concluded constitute Petitioner argues error,2 agree. thought itself 1043-1044. since made clear, however, ---- (1991), Id., 2559. 10 consequent question present case, how proceedings (by mean whose text accompanying does disclose judgment) rests law. easy one. itself, although unexplained, nature disposition ("dismissed" "denied") surrounding circumstances (in fact argument entirely bar), indicated But such clues will always, even ordinarily, Indeed, sometimes members issuing themselves rationale, merely undiscoverable nonexistent. 11 problem face arises, course, many formulary meant convey anything decision. Attributing therefore both difficult artificial. think attribution necessary facilitated, sound results more often assured, Coleman, 2559, presume Similarly where, here, approach accords view every matter, save below. Prihoda McCaughtry, 910 1379, 1383 (CA7 (dicta); Harmon Barton, 894 1268, 1272 (CA11 1990); Evans 881 117, 123, n. (CA4 1989); Ellis Lynaugh, 873 830, 838 (CA5 1989). 12 assists, said, administrability accuracy well—unlike application orders, achieves former expense latter. leaving effect (or, habeas, decision) relies bar, interpret deciding simply most improbable assessment what actually occurred. maxim silence implies consent, opposite—and generally behave accordingly, further discussion agree, disagree, reasons given essence nothing. gives effect—which "looks through" decision—most nearly reflects role intended play.3 13 poses various hypotheticals produce correct disposition. need them, do suggest irrebuttable; refute it. It shown, example, though relied retroactive change eliminated ground decision, issued directed extensive briefing limited Or shown that, appeal plainly out time, latter waive saying While acknowledge making rebuttable make less efficient categorical taken Courts adopted methodology, Prihoda, supra, F.2d, 1383; Harmon, 1272; Evans, 2; Ellis, 838, still simplify vast majority cases. details inquired into unless, if petitioner asserts, presumption, applied, wrong. 14 To begin asking Obviously Court; judgment, said absolutely nothing about denial. cite (without elaboration) two cases, holds facts particularity, relitigated habeas. Even knew cases (as opposed petition), irrelevant point before us presenting required go all, Castille Peoples, 346, 349-350, 1056, 1059-1060, 380 (1989); rules against superfluous recourse bearing ability raise utterly silent, neither us. 15 prior denials lower silent; and, discussed above, "judgment." look through carried burden adducing able show allowed him relitigate spite ordinary barring relitigation See, e.g., Cal.2d, P.2d, 1005. established prove so—much having so, decided reach subsists, overcome. Federal-court 2649-2650. specifically cause occasion holding remand purpose. reversed, remanded consistent 17 So ordered. 18 concurring. 19 I join add few words. Had stated matter law, summary, articulates disagreed Appeals, ambiguous. Hence, governs. 20 note "applies appears is, those good independent adequate decision." joining us, take opinion's bobtailed quotation ante, 2554, restrict presumption. 21 whom STEVENS join, dissenting. 22 For dissent ,S.Ct. case. had. shows claims, including addressed 15, 17. mistake apparently caused own "that none [sic ] way 83. discretionary, "judgment," "judgment" concedes pre-existing accord. Goodwin Collins, 185, 187 1382-1383 1990). denies, discretion entertain petitions. shall assume right. assume, argued, cognizable corpus. Duckworth Eagan, 492 195, 205-214, 2875, 2880-2886, 166 (1989) (O'CONNOR, concurring); cf. Stone Powell, 428 465, 96 3037, 49 1067 (1976). common circumstance unrealistic prohibition review—for resting (such contends exists California) preventing circumstance, posit real denial, result ("looking Since ineligibility availability nil precisely accorded

Category: 0