Legal Document

541 U.S. 428 JOHNSONv.CALIFORNIA. No. 03-6539. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 30, 2004. Decided May 3, In reversing petitioner's conviction, the California Appeal held that he was entitled to relief under v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258, 583 P. 2d 748, and Batson Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, but did not determine whether his separate evidentiary prosecutorial misconduct claims would independently support conviction's reversal. The State addressed only Wheeler/Batson claim in remanding case for further proceedings. Held: is dismissed want jurisdiction. This Court's jurisdiction limited review "[f]inal judgments . rendered by highest court a which decision could be had." 28 C. § 1257. instant falls outside exceptional categories cases can regarded as "final" 1257 despite ordering Because compliance with an essential prerequisite this deciding case's merits, has obligation raise any such question on its own. However, always successful policing gatekeeping function without counsel's aid. Part problem here portion Appeal's certified publication claim, unpublished provide guidance trial retrial. Petitioner appended opinion's published certiorari petition. Had full opinion been brought attention, it might have more evident final Attention indeed judgmen[t]" mandated Rules will avoid expenditure resources both counsel abortive proceeding this. Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 30 4th 1302, 71 270. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. Stephen B. Bedrick, appointment Court, 540 1102, argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Eric Schnapper. Seth K. Schalit, Supervising Deputy Attorney General California, respondent. brief were Bill Lockyer, General, Manuel Medeiros, Solicitor Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Gerald A. Engler, Senior Laurence Sullivan, General.* PER CURIAM. 1 We granted interpreting 79 (1986). 1045 (2003). briefed argued, we now conclude are matter. 2 reversed conviction. 270 petitioner People 748 (1978), supra. 105 Rptr. 727 (2001). It also noted claims, App. 87, those reversal and, after ground, remanded "for proceedings consistent [its] opinion." 4th, at 1328, 3d, 287. 3 Under 1257, our or decrees Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469 (1975), described four federal issue lower state courts. post-oral-argument supplemental brief, argues fourth these fits case. That category involves situations 4 "where finally decided courts pending party seeking prevail merits nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary where preclusive litigation relevant action rather than merely controlling nature character of, determining admissibility evidence in, still come. circumstances, if refusal immediately state-court seriously erode policy, entertained issue, itself determined purposes litigation." Id., 482-483. 5 Here, make no convincing erosion policy common all decisions rejecting defendant's claim. therefore does apply. See Florida Thomas, 532 774, 780 "A contrary conclusion permit exception swallow rule." Flynt Ohio, 451 619, 622 (1981) (per curiam). 6 present comes closest fitting third category, ultimately it. "those decided, come, later cannot had, whatever ultimate outcome case." Cox, supra, 481. event remand affirms judgment once seek California—albeit unsuccessfully—and then from Court. 7 Compliance provisions section. own motion, even though called attention See, e. g., Mansfield, & L. M. Co. Swan, 111 379, 384 (1884). But illustrates, aid counsel. 8 partial publication. portion. portion, briefly retrial, address objections properly preserved consider 58. petition writ certiorari. Rule 14.1(i) instructs petitioners include, inter alia, "relevant opinions entered case" appendix filed until joint filed. 58-112. us California's 9 A must demonstrate judgment. 14.1(g). And respondent duty "address perceived misstatement fact law bears what issues before granted." 15.2. Our require each statement basis merits. 24.1(e). At stages case, parties represented proper pursuant 1257(a). Pet. Cert. 1; Brief Support Respondent 1. 10 behooves assure themselves sought Such one. 11 dismiss 12 so ordered. Notes: * ofamici curiae urging NAACP Legal Defense Educational Fund, Inc., et al. Elaine Jones, Theodore Shaw, Norman J. Chachkin, Miriam Gohara, Christina Swarns, Steven Shapiro, Alan Schlosser, David Porter, Barbara Arnwine, Thomas Henderson, Michael Foreman, Audrey Wiggins, Sarah Crawford, Barry Sullivan. ofamicus affirmance Criminal Justice Foundation Kent Scheidegger Charles Hobson.

Classification Label: 8