Legal Document

541 U.S. 27 BALDWINv.REESE. No. 02-964. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 8, 2003. Decided March 2, 2004. Before seeking federal habeas relief, a state prisoner must exhaust available remedies, 28 U. S. C. § 2254(b)(1), giving the State "`opportunity to . correct' alleged violations its prisoners' rights," Duncan v. Henry, 513 364, 365, which means he "fairly present" his claim in each appropriate court alert that claim's nature. After respondent Reese appealed convictions and sentences lower courts denied him collateral Oregon discretionary review. His subsequent petition raised, inter alia, constitutional ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim. The Federal District held had not presented" this because appeals brief indicated was complaining about law violation. Ninth Circuit reversed, finding "fair presentation" requirement satisfied justices opportunity read decision before deciding whether grant And, they opinion, would have, or should realized rested upon law. Held: A ordinarily does if beyond petition, brief, similar papers find material will it presence such Pp. 30-34. (a) Assuming Reese's by itself did properly nature claim, failed meet standard. To say petitioner presents" when an appellate judge can discover only reading opinions is those judges — for otherwise forfeit State's decide first instance. impose requirement. That force alter their ordinary review practices, since do necessarily every case. And serious burden with powers, whose heavy workloads be significantly increased through briefs Finally, unnecessary avoid imposing unreasonable procedural burdens prisoners who may eventually seek habeas. litigant easily indicate basis example, citing source on relies simply labeling "federal." 30-32. (b) This wrong assume He concede explicitly "ineffective assistance counsel" refers cite any case might have alerted nature, even contain factual description supporting asserts nonetheless assistance" (1) "ineffective" term art claims, (2) state-law standards adjudicating "inadequate/ineffective claims are identical. rejects argument has demonstrated uses as referring federal-law, rather than state-law, However, second addressed by, presented to, Circuit, appeared here merits brief. Because issue complex consideration help resolution, Court, without expressing view issue's merits, exercises Rule 15.2 discretion deems waived. 32-34. 282 F. 3d 1184, reversed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting post, p. 34. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. Hardy Myers, Attorney General Oregon, argued cause petitioner. With were Peter Shepherd, Deputy General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor Janet A. Klapstein Robert B. Rocklin, Assistant Attorneys General. Dennis N. Balske, appointment 540 806, respondent.* JUSTICE BREYER Court. 1 writ corpus, thereby "`"opportunity pass correct" rights.'" 365 (1995) (per curiam) (quoting Picard Connor, 404 270, 275 (1971)). provide necessary "opportunity," (including supreme powers review), alerting Duncan, supra, at 365-366; O'Sullivan Boerckel, 526 838, 845 (1999). focuses presentation." 2 * Michael Reese, respondent, state-court kidnaping attempted sodomy Oregon's system. then brought relief proceedings (where represented appointed counsel). 3 made several different legal claims. In relevant part, asserted received both trial counsel." App. 47. added "his imprisonment violation [Oregon law]." Id., 48. It said counsel's conduct violated provisions Constitution. Ibid. But separate 4 ultimately sought raising, among other counsel effectively represent during one direct appeals. higher 5 divided panel reversed 1184 (2002). Although majority apparently believed fact determinative. 1193-1194. Rather, found "the [Oregon] claimed error review." 1194 (emphasis added). Had court, added, 6 We granted certiorari determine correctly interpreted II 7 begin assuming On assumption, standard, hold contrary. 8 recognize "opportunity" could them. our view, corpus 9 For thing, practices. Appellate judges, course, often opinions, but so Sometimes question alone. particularly where exercise power review, i. e., decision. instances, matter more validity alone lead hear Indeed, Procedure 9.05(7) (2003) instructs litigants identify clearly questions presented, why special importance, short statement facts, reasons reversal, "including authorities." 10 another opinion-reading courts, powers. Those workloads, See National Center Courts, Caseload Statistics 2002, pp. 106-110 (Table 2) (for 2001, total 5,341 appeals, including 908 petitions Court; California 32,273, 8,860 petitions; Louisiana 13,117, 3,230 Illinois 12,411, 2,325 petitions). 11 we corpus. wishing raise conjunction grounds, 12 these reasons, believe imposed unjustifiably undercut considerations federal-state comity exhaustion seeks promote. consequently (or document) order material, case, so. III 13 argues alternative agree. 14 words refer Constitution respect one. provides no citation Cf. Gray Netherland, 518 152, 163 (1996); S., 366. 15 two reasons. First, says word federal-law which, adds, solely referred "inadequate thus known, from use "ineffective," federal. 16 however, manner suggests, is, See, e. g., Lichau Baldwin, 166 Ore. 411, 415, 417, 999 P. 2d 1207, 1210, 1211 (2000) (using Constitution), rev'd 333 350, 39 851 own phrases points what single 17 Second, adds that, identity exists, need because, raising corresponding 18 address argument, leads us conclude there court. appearance merits. Under Court's 15.2, "a nonjurisdictional raised respondent's opposition deemed waived." Caterpillar Inc. Lewis, 519 61, 75, n. (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). falls squarely within rule. broad implications suggest resolution. Hence, issue, deem waived Roberts Galen Va., Inc., 525 249, 253-254 (1999) curiam); South Central Bell Telephone Co. Alabama, 160, 171 (1999); cf. Sprietsma Mercury Marine, 537 51, 56, 19 judgment 20 Reversed. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal Indiana et al. Stephen R. Carter, Indiana, Gary Damon Secrest, respective States follows: William Pryor, Jr., Bill Lockyer California, Ken Salazar Colorado, M. Jane Brady Delaware, G. Steven Rowe Maine, Mike McGrath Montana, Matt McNair Nebraska, Brian Sandoval Nevada, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Jim Petro Ohio, W. Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, D. Fisher Pennsylvania, Lawrence E. Long Greg Abbott Texas, Mark L. Shurtleff Utah, Sorrell Vermont, Christine O. Gregoire Washington, Darrell V. McGraw, West Virginia, Patrick J. Crank Wyoming; Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger. 21 dissenting. 22 disregard permit respondents defend grounds omitted "predicate intelligent resolution presented." Ohio Robinette, 33, 38 I Respondent satisfactorily demonstrates significant difference between predicated based Brief 29-35; see also Guinn Cupp, 304 488, 495-496, 747 984, 988-989 (1988) (in banc). therefore clear fair assess Accordingly, affirm Appeals.

Classification Label: 8