Legal Document

495 U.S. 320 110 S.Ct. 1880 109 L.Ed.2d 325 Paul DELO, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Centerv.Winford STOKES.No. A-795. May 11, 1990. Syllabus After respondent Stokes was convicted and sentenced to death in Missouri, he filed three unsuccessful habeas corpus petitions the federal courts. A few days before his scheduled execution, an application for stay of execution pending consideration a fourth petition. The District Court found that imposition warranted by issues raised claim state courts had selectively applied rules governing lesser included offense instructions capital murder cases violation right equal protection. Appeals denied State's motion vacate stay. Held: abused its discretion granting disposition second or successive petition can be granted only when there are substantial grounds upon which relief granted. Here, no such grounds, because Stokes' clearly constitutes abuse writ. His could have been first habeas, principles asserts not novel developed long this application. Motion PER CURIAM. 1 State Missouri has issued warrant Winford Stokes, expires at 11:59 p.m. CDT on 1979 death. conviction sentence were affirmed Supreme Court. v. 638 S.W.2d 715 (1982) (en banc). since separate writ courts, each denied. See Armontrout, 851 F.2d 1085 (C.A. 8 1988), cert. denied, 488 1019, 823, 102 812 (1989); 893 152 1989), 926, 2162, 492 (1990); No. 89-0133C(6) (ED Mo., Mar. 16, 1990). On 10, 1990, filing certiorari relating one petitions. 492. 2 While Court, within matter new afternoon 9, stating "the petitioner's protection laws violated courts' selective execution. Williams 891 656, 658-59 (8th Cir.1989), vacated grant rehearing en banc (February 7, 1990)." 90-0505C(6) Mo.). morning panel Eighth Circuit stay, judge dissenting. then asked That also now with 3 should "substantial might granted." Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 895, 103 3383, 3396, 77 1090 (1983). There grounds" present case, respondent's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 9(b); 2244(b). entitled instruction, claim, corpus. asserted last minute Indeed, himself cites dissenting opinions 1983 support contention. See, e.g., Holland, 653 670, 679 banc) (Welliver, J., dissenting). 4 "is another example writ." Woodard Hutchins, 464 377, 378-380, 104 752, 752-53, 78 541 (1984) (Powell, concurring, joined four other Justices) (vacating where claims could, should, corpus). is 5 It so ordered. 6 Justice KENNEDY, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE SCALIA join, concurring. 7 I join opinion more than 24-hour delay Appeals' ruling petition, discloses ground relief, makes appropriate some additional comments. In 12:01 a.m. under expires, as indicates, itself unable rule until midafternoon Friday, 11. All appeals consider implementing, following, procedures, those employed Eleventh Circuit, see 22-3, Rules United States (1987), make certain active judges available act emergency stays sort provide timely from body, may case necessary appropriate. 9 If court fails manner sufficiently prompt preserve jurisdiction protect parties consequences entered without adequate basis, injured party seek pursuant our Writs Act, 1651. Maxwell Bishop, 385 650, 87 768, 17 671 (1967) (common-law shortness time made ordinary appeal procedure unavailable). 10 Delay default system must allowed deprive parties, including States, lawful process they entitled. duty adopt follow procedures ensure all expeditious determinations respect any request Prompt review determination enable criminal processes operate undue interference assure proper functioning procedure. 11 BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins BLACKMUN Parts I, II, III, 12 * Today vacates Eastern court's sitting banc. Contrary majority's intimations, does involve defendant eve Rather, amendment April 5, current date set.* rush judgment instigated here insistence vacating Court's Mr. claim. 13 "In lifting imposed Appeals, resorted exercise power unusual rare occasion lower flagrantly discretion." Wainwright Adams, 466 964, 965, 2183, 2184, 80 809 (1984). basis quite properly vests considerable most familiar facts prior history. Title 2254, 9(b) provides that: 14 "A dismissed if finds it allege different merits or, alleged, failure petitioner assert constituted (Emphasis added.) 15 did choose dismiss grounds. To contrary, Judge George F. Gunn 16 "Upon thorough record it, concludes execution." This said repeatedly writs "are addressed sound trial judges. Theirs major responsibility just administration collateral remedies. . We confident will soundly applied." Sanders 373 1, 18-19, 83 1068, 1079, 148 (1963). Booker, 473 935, 938, 106 30, 31, 706 (1985) (MARSHALL, dissenting) ("[T]he decision 'deserving great weight' "). particularly well situated Congress entrusted him. He heard applications, attending complex detailed over several years. 18 closer we hope hours matter, order responsible. similarly due deference. 896, (1983) ("A sought appeals, generally places weight reached these circumstances"); O'Connor Board Education School 23, 449 1301, 1304, 101 72, 74, 66 179 (1980) (STEVENS, chambers) enter deference"). Nonetheless, decided both committed gross abuses intervene. Nothing explains adequately why adjudged harshly. II 19 judgment, "could Ante, 321-322. do share confidence matter. "equal asserted" hardly novel, ibid. (emphasis added) indeed, back 1868—the nature 20 determine whether begin defining what is. ruled effect held abeyance resolution 656 banc, reviewing Baker, 636 902, 904-905 banc), 459 1183, 834, 74 1027 (1983), "denies defendants law fourteenth Constitution." F.2d, 659. Given determined definitively contours impossible say "novel" one. 21 Even ascertain precise character decide previous would engage comprehensive past decade. today even purport this. contexts, noted legal depends inquiry into existing precedents. Cf. Butler McKellar, 494 407, 415, 1212, 1215, 108 347, 351 (1990) (that "within 'logical compass' earlier decision, indeed 'controlled' decision" prevent being "new rule" purposes retroactivity). Thus, mere fact point establishes "novel." III 22 When person's life stake cannot tolerate facile judgments. rather rely considered wisdom below, aided their familiarity law, resolved. dire error, unseemly indefensible. 382-383, 754-55, (BRENNAN, dissenting); id., 384, S.Ct., 755 call deny district needs "It important allow human lives snuffed out sure—emphatically sure—that law." Rosenberg 346 273, 321, 73 1152, 1177, 97 L.Ed. 1607 (1953) (Douglas, IV 23 Adhering my view penalty circumstances cruel punishment prohibited Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 227, 96 2909, 2950, 49 859 (1976) dissenting), 24 STEVENS, joins, 25 Appeals—particularly acting banc—are far better position Accordingly, respectfully dissent summary upheld Appeals. At time, denial dissolved 24. 27, set

Classification Label: 0