Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 793 (2007) 549 U.S. 147 Lonnie Lee BURTON, Petitioner, v. Belinda STEWART, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center. No. 05-9222. Supreme Court of United States. January 9, 2007. *794 Rob McKenna, Attorney General, William Berggren Collins, Carol A. Murphy, Deputy Solicitors Paul Douglas Weisser, Senior Counsel, John J. Samson, Counsel Record, Assistant Olympia, WA, for Respondent. Brian Tsuchida, Laura Mate, Federal Public Defender, Western District Washington, Seattle, Thomas C. Goldstein, Akin, Gump, Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, DC, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law School, Litigation Clinic, Stanford, CA, Amy Howe, Kevin K. Russell, Howe P.C., petitioner. PER CURIAM. We granted certiorari in this case, 547 1178, 126 2352, 165 Ed. 2d 278 (2006), to determine whether our decision Blakely 542 296, 124 2531, 159 403 (2004), announced a new rule and, if so, it applies retroactively on collateral review. do not answer these questions, however, because petitionera state prisoner seeking postconviction relief from the federal courtsfailed comply with gatekeeping requirements 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). That failure deprived jurisdiction hear his claims. Accordingly, we vacate judgment Appeals and remand instructions direct dismiss petitioner's habeas corpus application lack jurisdiction. I On October 31, 1994, Washington jury convicted petitioner Burton rape, robbery, burglary. App. 3-4. The trial court initially entered sentence December 19, 1994 (1994 judgment). In that judgment, sentenced total 562 months prison. State Burton, 35747-6-1 etc., 86 Wash.App. 1046, 1997 WL 306429, *12 (Wash.App., June 1997). rested 562-month two alternative grounds under Washington's determinate sentencing scheme. First, within-guidelines sentences each offense153 105 burglary, 304 rapeand directed be served consecutively, term months. Id., at *13. Under "multiple offense policy," imposition consecutive constitutes an "exceptional" sentence, Wash. Rev.Code §§ 9.94A.120(18), 9.94A.400(1)(a) (2000),[1] but justified such ground running *795 three terms concurrently would result "clearly too lenient" light purposes See 9.94A.390(2)(i).[2] second basis which calculated was by imposing exceptional solely rape convictionagain otherwise lenient." After unrelated prior conviction overturned, requested resentencing. over year after amended (1996 judgment), which, recalculating Burton's offender scores, imposed relied conviction, run other terms. Ibid.; 45. review, upheld supra, declined 133 Wash.2d 1025, 950 P.2d 475 (1997), cert. denied, 523 1082, 118 1533, 140 683 (1998). remanded resentencing, court's exclusive reliance decreased potential early release credits, raising vindictiveness concerns. *14. response, March 16, 1998, (1998 3. recited jury's guilty verdicts, id., 3-4, again reverting its original doing sorunning 7, 29-32. sought review courts eventually rejected challenges both proceedings. 43-55; Brief Petitioner 1a-4a. 28, while still pending, filed petition 2254 writ States petition). 34. standard form he filled out warned applicants they must "ordinarily first exhaust . available remedies as which" "action court," or risk being "barred presenting additional later date." 37-38. nonetheless challenged custody only disputing constitutionality convictions, pressing any Where "[d]ate conviction," listed "Dec. 1994," corresponding roughly date judgment. asked applicant had "any appeal now pending court, either federal, attack," answered "Yes," explaining "[the] received resentencing is appeal." 40 (emphasis added). denied relief, 42, Ninth Circuit affirmed, Walter, 21 Fed. Appx. 632 (2001), 535 *796 1060, 122 1923, 152 830 (2002). Over years subsequent filing 1998 petition, challenges, another (2002 petition), Washington. This time, claimed contesting sentence. particular, alleged violated Apprendi New Jersey, 530 466, 120 2348, 435 (2000), extent departed based own factual determinations. 77, Waddington, 142 297 (2005). Both State's contention lacked entertain obtained order authorizing him file "second successive" required provisions, 2244(b)(3). merits, claim agreed could benefit 403, did apply Fed.Appx., 299. It 2002 before us today. conclude, though, seek obtain authorization Court, never consider place. II Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) established stringent set procedures "in pursuant 2254(a), follow wishes challenging custody, 2244(b)(1). pertinent part, district "shall move appropriate appeals application." 2244(b)(3)(A). A three-judge panel may authorize successive presents previously raised satisfies one articulated 2244(b)(2). 2244(b)(3)(C); Gonzalez Crosby, 545 524, 529-530, 125 2641, 162 480 (2005); see also Felker Turpin, 518 651, 656-657, 664, 116 2333, 135 827 (1996). seek, much less obtain, file. When held been some nine earlier. same short, twice brought claims court. As result, AEDPA, receive challenge. Because without it. determined *797 because, McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 111 1454, 113 517 (1991), "legitimate excuse failing raise" petition. Appx., 299 (quoting McCleskey, 490, 1454; internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, reasoned exhausted when "they were ripe review" time. 298. assume deciding, Circuit's excuse" approach determining correct. ruling excuse," inconsistent precise practice have explained governs circumstances Burton's. plurality opinion Rose Lundy, 455 509, 520-522, 102 1198, 71 379 (1982), stated should "mixed petitions"those unexhausted claims petitioners petitions options. They withdraw mixed remaining claims, return fully successive." Slack McDaniel, 529 473, 485-86, 1595, 146 (2000). Alternatively, prisoners proceed so risks subjecting raise rigorous procedural obstacles. 520-521, 1198 (plurality opinion); Slack, 486-487, 1595. noted, used just consequence. 37-38; There no cases supposing, did, who chooses options elects adjudication claimsmay assert precisely time reasoning conflicts Lundy 2244(b) allow separate uncommon situation where reversed. Such exhaustion requirement, purpose reducing "piecemeal litigation," Duncan Walker, 533 167, 180, 121 2120, 150 251 goal "streamlining proceedings," Rhines Weber, 544 269, 277, 1528, 161 440 directs decisions, Stewart Martinez-Villareal, 637, 1618, 849 (1998), regarded But are readily distinguishable. capital insane therefore put death necessarily unripe until issued warrant execution, prisoner's request consideration U.S., 644-645, 1618. unlike there attempted bring initial prompting look concluding "should treated manner *798 returns exhausting remedies," is, characterizing 644, Indeed, expressly address fails 645 n., relevant Without more, therefore, holding Martinez-Villareal does support conclusion equally unhelpful Burton; merely confirmed "first" dismissed contains returning confront bar. 485-486, "petition has adjudicated `any petition' petition." 487, 1595 478, ("[A] merits `second successive' petition" added)). case quite differenthis subject dismissal containing fact merits. Moving beyond upon Circuit, argues different judgments. He notes identified 34, detained. Unlike re Taylor, 171 F.3d 185 (C.A.4 1999), cited intervening between petitions. specifically described "as 40, belying notion those arose distinct 1998.[3] finally contends instead waited complete, risked losing opportunity challenge due AEDPA's 1-year statute limitations. 2244(d)(1). argument misreads states limitations period applicable "a person court" shall from, here, "the became final expiration review." 2244(d)(1)(A). "Final criminal means judgment." Berman *799 States, 302 211, 212, 58 164, 82 204 (1937). begin "became review"which occurred well rebuttal mean mistaken. Section 2254(a) entertain" behalf court." assuredly court"even if, point, triggering long short neither nor vacated, ordered. NOTES [1] noted 298, n. 1, since recodified code. Citations provisions effect sentencing. [2] range concurrently, punished committed rape. 35747-6-I *11-*12 [3] For reasons, Castro 540 375, 786, 157 778 (2003), misplaced. reversed lower recharacterization motion requesting Rule Criminal Procedure 33 Here 1998; involves similar "recharacterization" recognize confined gave rise

Classification Label: 0