Legal Document

531 U.S. 225121 S.Ct. 712148 L.Ed.2d 629 WILLIAM FIORE, PETITIONERv.GREGORY WHITE, WARDEN, et al. No. 98-942 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES January 9, 2001 ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR THIRD CIRCUIT Per Curiam. 1 Petitioner, William Fiore, was convicted of violating a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the operation hazardous waste facility without permit. After Fiore's conviction became final, Supreme Court interpreted for first time, and made clear that conduct not within its scope. However, courts refused to grant Fiore collateral relief. We granted certiorari in part decide when, or whether, Federal Due Process Clause requires State apply new interpretation state criminal retroactively cases on review. 2 In order determine if question fact presented, we asked whether decision interpreting like interpretation, it was, instead, correct statement law when final. The Court, responding our certified question, has now retroactivity is at issue. At same court's makes did violate statute. consequently find his consistent with demands Clause. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 307, 316 (1979). 3 * This case, previously described greater detail opinion certifying state-law 528 23 (1999), arises out under prohibits "operat[ing] waste" "permit." Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 35, §6018.401(a) (Purdon 1993); see Commonwealth CC 8508740 (Ct. Common Pleas, Allegheny Cty., Pa., Jan. 19, 1988), App. 6. conceded had permit, but argued deviated so dramatically from permit's terms he nonetheless violated And Commonwealth's lower agreed. id., 43_44; 00485 PGH 1988 (May 12, 1989), 99_100 (affirming trial reasoning). 4 declined review 525 577, 575 A. 2d 109 (1990), Thereafter, agreed co-defendant, David Scarpone, crime time. reversed Scarpone's ground meant what said: unlawful operate permit; one who person hence, 535 273, 279, 634 1109, 1112 (1993) (describing as "a bald fiction cannot endorse"). 5 unsuccessful subsequent state-court attempts have own set aside, 445 Super. 401, 665 1185 (1995), appeal denied, 544 623, 675 1243 (1996), brought federal habeas corpus action. District writ, Appeals Third Circuit reversed. 149 F.3d 221 (1998). believed announced rule law, inapplicable already final conviction. Id., 227. And, said, "state are no [federal] constitutional obligation their decisions retroactively." 222. inconsistent II 6 Because were uncertain Court's case represented change Pennsylvania, following court: 7 "Does 1993), forth (1993), date final?" U.S., 29. received reply: 8 "Scarpone announce law. Our ruling merely clarified plain language . [§6018.401(a)] Scarpone furnishes proper final." White, 562 634, 646, 757 842, 848_849 (2000) (citation omitted). 9 reply specifies "merely clarified" Pennsylvania-as properly interpreted-at time this presents issue retroactivity. Rather, simply can, consistently Clause, convict statute, interpreted, does prohibit. 10 precedents make continued incarceration charge due process. held Fourteenth Amendment forbids proving elements beyond reasonable doubt. Jackson, supra, 316; re Winship, 397 358, 364 (1970). failure possess permit basic element which convicted. 2d, 1112. parties agree presented evidence whatsoever prove element. To contrary, Commonwealth, conceding Brief Respondents 1, necessarily concedes failed one. 11 simple, inevitable conclusion fails satisfy Constitution's demands. therefore reverse contrary judgment remand proceedings opinion. 12 So ordered.

Classification Label: 3