Document: 529 U.S. 446120 S.Ct. 1587146 L.Ed.2d 518 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EDWARDS, WARDENv.CARPENTER CERTIORARI TO APPEALSFOR SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2060. Argued February 28, 2000 Decided April 25, Respondent pleaded guilty while maintaining his innocence to Ohio murder and robbery charges exchange prosecutor's agreement that plea could withdrawn if death penalty was imposed. Appeals affirmed conviction sentence imprisonment, he did not appeal Supreme Court. After pursuing state postconviction relief pro se, respondent, represented new counsel, petitioned reopen direct appeal, claiming original appellate counsel constitutionally ineffective failing challenge sufficiency evidence supporting sentence. court dismissed application untimely under Rule Appellate Procedure 26(B), affirmed. then filed federal habeas petition, raising, inter alia, sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, alleging raising claim on appeal. District found ineffective-assistance-of-counsel cause excusing procedural default because 26(B) an adequate ground bar review ineffective-assistance claim; concluded respondent's ineffective; granted writ conditioned court's reopening claim. On cross-appeals, Sixth Circuit held served excuse whether or former had procedurally defaulted, respondent exhausted presenting courts Finding prejudice from counsel's failure raise directed issue upon according culpability hearing. Held: A defaulted can serve another only petitioner satisfy "cause prejudice" standard respect itself. doctrine its attendant are grounded comity federalism concerns, Coleman Thompson, 501 722, 730, apply occurred trial, collateral attack, Murray Carrier, 477 478, 490_492. Thus, prisoner must demonstrate state-court any therefrom, before consider claim's merits. U.S., 750. Counsel's ineffectiveness properly preserve suffice cause, itself independent constitutional supra, 488_499. principles underlying exhaustion remedies require presented may used establish default. 489. doctrine's purposes would frustrated were available who court, such manner not, rules, have entertained it. Pp. 4_7. 163 F.3d 938, reversed remanded. Scalia, J., delivered Court, which Rehnquist, C. O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Breyer, concurring judgment, Stevens, Opinion NOTICE: This subject formal revision publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Decisions, States, Washington, D. 20543, typographical other errors, order corrections made goes press. Justice Scalia 1 case presents question barred considering "cause" when defaulted. 2 * indicted grand jury aggravated robbery. He entered innocence-a procedure we North Carolina Alford, 400 25 (1970)-in prosecution's three-judge panel accepted elected, after mitigation hearing, impose penalty. based recitation and, following sentenced him life imprisonment parole eligibility 30 years aggravated-murder count concurrent term 10 aggravated-robbery count. assigned single error offered established should eligible 20 rather than years. affirmed, 3 unsuccessfully again pursuant 26(B),1 evidence. failed show, rule required, good filing 90-day period allowed.2 one-sentence per curiam opinion, State Carpenter, 74 St. 3d 408, 659 N. E. 2d 786 (1996) 4 May 3, 1996, petition corpus Southern Ohio, alleging, insufficient, violation Fifth Fourteenth Amendments, Concluding considered next acknowledged grounds, 26(B)'s inconsistent rendered inadequate review. Ford Georgia, 498 411, 423_424 (1991) (state "independent ground" barring subsequent unless " `firmly regularly followed' applied). Proceeding merits test Strickland 466 668 (1984), 5 Carpenter Mohr, 938 (CA6 1998). In panel's view, sufficed even though might, law, barred. addition We certiorari. 528 ___ (1999). II 6 Petitioner contends erred recognize agree. 7 "grounded concerns federalism," 730 (1991), alike 490_492 (1986). "[A] meet State's requirements claims deprived opportunity address those first instance." Coleman, 732. therefore Id., one exception rule, here, circumstance sufficient probability our result fundamental miscarriage justice. Ibid. 8 Although identified precision exactly what default, certain circumstances suffice. 488_489. Not just deficiency performance do, however; assistance so violate Federal Constitution. words, some And Carrier underlie longstanding doctrine-then now codified statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c)-require like others, raised court. assistance," said, generally "be default." 9 present Carrier's requirement asserted uniquely immune procedural-default accompanies all contexts-whether, suffices "presented" courts, law requires. That hard question. An affirmative answer render illusory.3 recognized inseparability Coleman: "In absence habeas, petitioners able avoid defaulting their court_ . ensures States' interest correcting own mistakes respected cases." interplay between last Term O'Sullivan Boerckel, 526 838 (1999), concluding latter necessary `protect integrity' rule." 848 (quoting id., 853 (Stevens, dissenting)). requirement, utterly defeated obtain simply `letting run' longer available. 848. Those less allow consistent circumstances, "concededly remedies," hardly said that, require, given "fair `opportunity pass [his claims].' 854 dissenting (emphasis added) Darr Burford, 339 200, 204 (1950)). 11 To hold, say excused cause-and-prejudice Indeed, well conclude remand (although note argued can, preferring instead argue does to). Or conclude, constitute express view these issues, place. 12 13 For foregoing reasons, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings opinion. 14 It ordered. 15 whom Stevens joins, judgment. 16 I believe correctly decided basic question: "Whether 'cause' defaulted." question's phrasing reveals my concern. question, majority's written clarity, few lawyers, let alone unrepresented prisoners, readily understand reason lies complexity Court's jurisprudence-a practice deny protection seeks assure. Today's decision unnecessarily adds cannot reconciled recognition determination matter judge. 17 explain why so, risk oversimplification, reiterate elementary rules. judge freeing prisoner, "in custody Constitution laws treaties States." 2254(a). However, state-law justifies prisoner's detention, regardless Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 81_88 (1977). One "state often adequate, basis holding "procedural default," proper time. conditions assertion "adequate" (and consequently federal-law claim). There three situations otherwise valid claims: (1) where "fundamental justice," 750 (1991); (2) followed,' James Kentucky, 341, 348_349 (1984); (3) "prejudice[d]" having 87. 18 Ordinarily, judge, looking determine potential existence might consideration decides law. Ford, supra; James, supra. Thus applied standards there justice." See, e.g., Schlup Delo, 513 298, 314_317 (1995). also looked factual surrounding determining "firmly [and] followed." 424_425. normally default" same manner. 489 (1986) ("[T]he cause" "a law"). 19 If stop rules complicated, still comprehensible. look facts "adequate ground." adequacy Unfortunately, become more complex. contention follow rule-a "cause," lawyer (who rule) performed inadequately. determined, violated defendant's Amendment right effective amount overcome reasoned, exhaust wrote: 21 "[I]f show find anomalous position adjudicating unexhausted available." 22 today holds do properly, i.e., comply doing bars ever asserting complied 23 raises special kind "exhaustion" problem. type ("ineffective assistance") happened independently all, prove (i.e., "ineffective assistance"), want take action first. Ordinary assure initial Why similar situation? As pointed out, "anomalous" "adjudicat[e] 24 anomaly disappears, however, once "ineffective-assistance" (which appeared guise "cause"). requires result. Once exhausted-either through presentation default-there difference "anomalous position" yet possibility thus hold (excusing different claim) grounds majority creates anomaly; cure one. added resulting obvious. Consider wants assert (call FCC). Suppose asserts claimed replies C). alleged (C) consists "my attorney ineffective," C today, lost FCC, forever. But, overstate. According necessarily FCC forever followed governing FCC) C*). Ante, 6_7. C*, C, FCC. 26 concede system logic, indeed attractive power difficult puzzles. But succumb proceeding lose runs afoul claim? And, particular, "ineffective-assistance-of-counsel" many "causes" rules? satisfactory questions. 27 agree majority, returned Appeals. barred, "assistance" received "ineffective" (or trial Constitution-all secure relief. matters. concur Notes 29 1. provides, relevant part: "(1) defendant criminal sentence, counsel. shall appeals within ninety days journalization applicant shows later time." 2. July 15, 1994. until 1, 1993, two completed, begun Rule's date expired 90 thereafter. 31 3. Last Term, summary reversal, clearly expressed Stewart LaGrand, 115, 120 bound LaGrand waived thereby rendering discussion dicta, because, event, opinions without benefit full briefing oral argument little precedential value. Whether analysis characterized dictum alternative holding, whatever value ease recently resolved identical reflects degree resolution flows irresistibly precedents.

Category: 0