Legal Document

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFREY WOODS, WARDEN v. CORY DONALD ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 14–618. Decided March 30, 2015 PER CURIAM. Federal courts may grant habeas corpus relief if the underlying state-court decision was “contrary to, or in­ volved an unreasonable application of, clearly established law, as determined by” this Court. 28 U.S. C. §2254(d)(1). Here, Sixth Circuit held that respondent Cory Donald’s attorney provided per se ineffective assis­ tance of counsel under United States Cronic, 466 648 (1984), when he briefly absent during testimony concerning other defendants. Because no from Court establishes Donald is entitled to we reverse. I After a day drinking and smoking marijuana, four others—Seante Liggins, Rashad Moore, Dewayne Saine, Fawzi Zaya—decided rob drug dealer named Mohammed Makki. Donald, Liggins drove Makki’s home in Dearborn, Michigan, wearing black skull caps coats. Moore entered house, while waited car. Michael McGinnis, one runners, house at time. When came through door, McGinnis raised his hands dropped face-down floor. He heard scuffle kitchen two gunshots someone said, “ ‘[L]et it go.’ ” Rapelje, 580 Fed. Appx. 277, 279 (CA6 2014). that, McGinnnis felt gun on back head rifled pockets saying, ‘[W]hat you 2 WOODS got, what got?’ 2012 WL 6047130, *3 (ED Mich., Dec. 5, 2012). also men whisper other, ‘I got shot, shot.’ Appx., 279. left, McGin­ nis found Makki slumped against refrigerator dying. About seven minutes after they returned, guns hand, Liggins’ told others had stolen $320 accidentally shot him crime. That night, checked into hospital for gunshot wound foot. Police arrested about three weeks later. The State charged with count first-degree felony murder counts armed robbery. Zaya pleaded guilty, tried Saine. His defense theory present scene crime but did not participate. At trial, government sought admit chart chronicling phone calls among Zaya. Saine’s attorneys objected, declined, saying: don’t have dog race. It does affect me all.’ Id., 280. court admit­ ted exhibit took short recess. trial resumed, courtroom. first, judge indicated would wait attorney. But then decided proceed because already apply client. 10 later, lawyer returned. informed ‘up until point only were discussing telephone chart,’ which replied, ‘[ Y ]es, your Honor, record, race interest that.’ Ibid. jury guilty all counts. sentenced life imprisonment felony-murder concurrent prison terms 10½ 20 years each robbery On appeal, 3 argued new attorney’s absence call denied Amendment right effective assistance counsel. Michigan Appeals rejected claim, Supreme review. District Eastern Dis­ trict granted federal relief, affirmed. Appeals’ both contrary involved Court’s Cronic. In normal course, defendants claiming must satisfy familiar framework Strickland Washington, 668, 687 requires showing “counsel’s performance deficient” “that deficient perfor­ mance prejudiced defense.” And reviewing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel “a indulge strong presumption counsel’s conduct falls within wide range reasonable professional tance.” 689. however, presume defendant has suffered unconstitutional prejudice “is critical stage trial.” U.S., 659. Bell Cone, 535 685, 696 (2002), characterized “critical stage” “held significant consequences accused.” According Circuit, these statements should compelled hold consti­ tuted assistance. Without identifying any directly point, concluded relevant case “similar to” our cases applying 284. 4 II A Under Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, state court’s merits deter­ mined decisions Court, “based determination facts.” §2254(d). argue factually erroneous. Instead, argues ineffective- assistance-of-counsel cases. AEDPA’s standard intentionally ‘ “difficult meet.” ’ White Woodall, 572 ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., 3) (quoting Metrish Lancaster, 569 (2013) 5)). We explained ‘clearly law’ purposes §2254(d)(1) cludes holdings, opposed dicta, decisions.” White, S., (some internal quotation marks omitted). “And ‘unrea­ sonable those holdings be objectively unreasonable, merely wrong; even clear error will suffice.” 3–4) (same). To high bar, petitioner required “show ruling claim being presented so lacking justification there well understood comprehended existing law beyond possibility fairminded disagreement.” Harrington Richter, 562 83, 103 (2011). Adherence principles serves important interests federalism comity. requirements reflect “presumption know follow law.” Woodford Visciotti, 537 19, 24 (2002) ( curiam). criminal convictions collateral 5 review, judges are afford due respect by overturning their could dispute wrong. review thus exists guard extreme malfunctions justice sys­ tems, substitute ordinary correction appeal.” Harrington, supra, 102–103 (internal This especially true claims counsel, where AEDPA “doubly deferential” order “both benefit doubt.” Burt Titlow, 571 1) Cullen Pinholster, 563 170, (2011) 17)). B affirmed Cronic­ based case. holding never ad­ dressed whether rule announced Cronic applies regarding codefendants’ actions. itself, defendant’s lack experience time preparation warranted prejudice, coun- sel’s absence. See 663–666. announc­ ing cited earlier finding “counsel either totally absent, prevented assisting accused proceeding.” 659, n. 25. none dealt circumstances like here. involve counsel; instead, declined capital “failed ‘mount some life’ prosecution introduced evidence sentenc­ hearing gave closing statement.” 6 696. confront “the specific question case,” Lopez Smith, 574 (per curiam) 5). most muster “[t]he witness similar events th[is] deemed stages.” conclusion doubly First, precedents, See, e.g., Carey Musladin, 549 70, 76–77, (2006). Second, framed issue too level generality. Lopez, “testimony witness”; sure, considered be­ cause prosecuted aiding-and-abetting murder. position nothing do planning code­ fendants. address irrelevant own Nor stated ‘step proceeding . h[olds] accused.’ 284 Bell, 696). “objectively unreasonable” might indirectly inculpated eyes jury. correct. Just last Term warned “where “precise con­ tours” [a] remain “unclear,” enjoy 7 ‘broad discretion’ adjudication prisoner’s claims.” 9) Lockyer Andrade, 538 63, 76 (2003), turn quot­ Harmelin 501 957, 998 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring part judgment)). Within contours jurist conclude “circumstances likely cost litigating effect particular unjustified.” 658. refusal “extreme malfunction” relief. 102. III consider narrow text “expres[s] view principle.” Marshall Rodgers, 7). All matters here, mattered For reason, upon unavailable. petition writ certiorari respondent’s motion forma pauperis granted. judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. ordered.

Classification Label: 1