Legal Document

540 U.S. 12 MITCHELL, WARDENv.ESPARZA. No. 02-1369. Supreme Court of United States. Decided November 3, 2003. Respondent was sentenced to death for felony murder. On state postconviction review, he argued that had not been convicted an offense which a sentence could be imposed because the indictment did charge him as "principal offender" under relevant Ohio statute. The appellate court, however, held literal compliance with statute required where, here, only one defendant is named in indictment. That court also rejected respondent's second petition, alleged, inter alia, ineffective assistance counsel arguing State's failure comply its sentencing procedures violated Eighth Amendment. In granting subsequent federal habeas District concluded court's decision unreasonable application clearly established law. Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Amendment precluded and harmless-error review inappropriate. Held: exceeded limits on by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), permits relief if adjudication merits resulted contrary to, or involved of, This Court's precedents do support Circuit's conclusion Ohio's respondent "principal" functional equivalent dispensing reasonable-doubt requirement. noncapital cases, this has often trial instruct jury all statutory elements subject analysis. require opposite result where violation occurs capital proceeding. Indeed, number cases have defendants. Because does conflict reasoning holdings precedent, it Nor Habeas appropriate applied "objectively unreasonable" manner. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U. S. 63, 75-77. case here. defined principal offender actual killer, instructions show verdict would surely same instructed find offense. After all, person charged indictment, there no evidence anyone else involved. Certiorari granted; 310 F. 3d 414, reversed remanded. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. 1 Appeals affirmed grant Gregory Esparza after concluding that, requires State narrow class eligible defendants, improperly subjected claims review. 414 (2002). ignores C. we therefore petition certiorari reverse. 2 February 1983, entered store Toledo, Ohio, approached two employees, Melanie Gerschultz James Barailloux. No store. At gunpoint, ordered open cash register. Barailloux meanwhile fled through rear door, entering attached home storeowner, Evelyn Krieger. As alerting Krieger robbery, heard gunshot. returned found lying floor, fatally wounded single gunshot her neck. register approximately $110 missing. 3 aggravated murder during commission Rev. Code Ann. 2903.01 (Anderson 2002), 2911.01. He both counts, judge accepted jury's recommendation conviction. additionally 7 25 years' imprisonment plus years firearm specification. convictions sentences. Esparza, 39 St. 8, 529 N. E. 2d 192 (1988), cert. denied, 490 1012 (1989). 4 argued, first time, Although course committing offender."1 his claim, required: "[W]here alleging murder, redundant being offender. Only more than need specify allegation `principal offender.'" L-90-235, 1992 WL 113827, *9 (May 29, 1992), cause dism'd, 65 1453, 602 250 (1992). 5 then filed alleging, attorney argue conclusory opinion denied referring back previous decision. L-84-225, 1994 395114, *5 (July 27, 1994), 70 1473, 640 845 (1994). import clear: failed prove prejudiced any error committed harmless. words, "The ... determined since [respondent] individual charged, must offender." Brief Opposition 2. 6 Having exhausted avenues law, Northern Ohio. Appeals' law our opinions Apprendi New Jersey, 530 466 (2000), Sullivan Louisiana, 508 275 (1993). light error, well others opinion, granted part issued writ corpus sentence. Anderson, 3:96-CV-7434 (Oct. 13, 2000), App. Pet. Cert. 41a-240a. Court, petitioned certiorari, now grant, along motion leave proceed forma pauperis. A may petitioner claim adjudicated "resulted Federal States." 2254(d)(1). Appeals, cite, much less apply, section. 8 "contrary to" "applies rule contradicts governing set forth cases" "confronts facts are materially indistinguishable from nevertheless arrives at different precedent." Williams Taylor, 362, 405-406 (2000); see Price Vincent, 634, (2003); Early Packer, 537 7-8 (2002) (per curiam). . law" simply cite opinions. Id., 8. We even aware precedents, "so long neither nor state-court them." Ibid. 9 According Circuit, "dispensing reasonable doubt requirement." 3d, 421 (citing supra, 280). Our conclusion. g., Neder States, 527 1, 19 (1999); California Roy, 519 (1996) curiam); Carella California, 491 263, 266 (1989) Pope Illinois, 481 497 (1987). Neder, example, such "differs markedly constitutional violations defy review." S., so holding, explicitly distinguished Sullivan—the beyond doubt—"`vitiat[ed] findings,'" 11, whereas element not, id., 13-15. Where determining offense, feasible. 10 cannot say occurred context proceeding precedent result. defendants,2 Arizona Fulminante, 499 279, (1991) (unconstitutional admission coerced confession guilt stage); Clemons Mississippi, 494 738 (1990) (unconstitutionally broad Satterwhite Texas, 486 249 (1988) stage), left question similar presented here another case, Ring Arizona, 536 584, 609, n. ("We reach assertion harmless pecuniary gain finding implicit guilty verdict"). 11 relying absence distinguish hold available type authority overrule view own, when is, best, ambiguous. law." becomes whether determination "unreasonable 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added; punctuation omitted). "it appears `beyond complained contribute obtained.'" 15 (quoting Chapman 386 18, 24 (1967)); Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 681 (1986). erred errors were harmless; rather, 75-77 Woodford Visciotti, 19, Williams, 410 (An incorrect law"). 13 hardly objectively unreasonable. "`principal offender'" "`the killer,'" Chinn, 85 548, 559, 709 1166, 1177 (1999), "`defined purposely causing while Aggravated Robbery,'" 432 (Suhrheinrich, J., dissenting). further determine "`whether proved Murder Defendant Robbery.'" these instructions, There other crime present store.3 Cf. ("[W]here apparently bring contesting omitted element, answering absent fundamentally undermine purposes guarantee"). Under circumstances, aside review.4 14 judgment States reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. It ordered. Notes: 2929.04(A) 2002) provides, part: "Imposition penalty precluded, unless following specified count doubt: "(7) committing, attempting commit, fleeing immediately commit either or, offender, prior calculation design." citedPresnell Georgia, 439 (1978) curiam), due process noting rather remand analysis, reversed. Presnell, Georgia sustained supported evidence, though unaware issue never submitted jury. relied defendant's lack notice inability defend himself, faulty incomplete instruction. noted brought time suggested might participant crime, Joe Jasso. jury, trial, thus bearing correctness decision, like Appeals', limited express grounds

Classification Label: 0