Legal Document

543 U.S. 447 BELLv.CONE No. 04-394. Supreme Court of United States. Decided January 24, 2005. The Tennessee jury found that four aggravating circumstances, including the murders committed by respondent were "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel," outweighed mitigating evidence, and sentenced to death. His direct appeal state collateral attacks proved unsuccessful, Federal District denied habeas relief. Ultimately, Sixth Circuit reversed on ground cruel" aggravator was unconstitutionally vague under Eighth Amendment, State had not applied a narrowing construction adopted in its earlier Dicks case cure aggravation. Held: no power issue writ corpus. Assuming it correctly concluded State's statutory circumstance facially vague, erred presuming did vagueness because court neither mentioned nor cited Dicks. Under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)'s "`highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,'" Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 19, 24 (per curiam), federal courts are free presume comply with constitutional dictates based nothing more than lack citation. In addition, absent an affirmative indication contrary, this must followed established precedent, as done numerous other times. Even presumption, would still conclude narrower construction, since reasoning here closely resembled rationale cases where expressly so. And exact one approved Proffitt Florida, 428 242, 255, is itself vague. Certiorari granted; 359 F. 3d 785, remanded. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. 1 States Appeals granted corpus Gary Bradford Cone after concluding at sentencing phase his trial failed any deficiencies appeal. 799 (2004). Because result fails accord deference required § 2254(d), we grant petition certiorari respondent's motion proceed forma pauperis reverse. 2 * Respondent killed Shipley Todd, 93, wife Cleopatra, 79, August 10, 1980, their home conclusion 2-day crime spree. killings accomplished brutal callous fashion: elderly victims "repeatedly beaten about head until they died," Cone, 665 W. 2d 87, 90-91 (Tenn. 1984), bodies subsequently discovered "horribly mutilated cruelly beaten," id., 90. A convicted of, inter alia, two counts murder first degree perpetration burglary. At penalty trial, unanimously circumstances1 evidence. 3 affirmed convictions sentence. Id., 96. As relevant here, held three circumstances "were clearly shown evidence." 94.2 With respect jury's finding said: 4 "The also question especially cruel involved torture depravity mind provided [Tenn. Code Ann.] 39-2-203(i)(5). evidence abundantly both been brutally death multiple crushing blows skulls. Blood spattered throughout house, apparently attempted resist, defensive wounds persons. only excuse offered entire record unspeakably conduct accused these some point ceased `cooperate' him ransacking effort flee from arrest. previously stated, stipulated counsel [respondent] there self-defense even remotely suggested. deaths instantaneous, obviously be before other. terror, fright horror helpless citizens have endured certainly something could taken into account circumstance." 94-95. 5 twice sought relief conviction sentence proceedings court, avail. second amended postconviction relief, raised 52 independent claims error, contention Amendment. each barred Tenn. Ann. 40-30-111 (1990), which limited grounds may review those waived determined previous proceedings. explained challenge "heinous, circumstance, along many claims, "clearly [a] re-statemen[t] heretofore upon Direct Appeal Criminal First Petition." State, P-06874 Crim. Ct., Dec. 16, 1993), p. 6. denial all grounds. 927 579, 582 (1995). permission II 6 1997, U.S.C. 2254 Western Tennessee, again asserting multitude claims. relief; procedurally failure raise court. entitled another consider challenges jury. Bell, 243 961, 975 (2001). We judgment. Bell 535 685, 702 (2002). 7 On remand, same panel corpus, time judge dissenting, rejected petitioner's argument defaulted claim Based understanding law, Court's statutorily mandated sentence, see 39-2-205(c)(1) (1982), necessarily included consideration therefore "fairly presented" if himself.3 3d, 791-793. Judge Norris dissented point. 806. 8 Turning merits, court's affirmance light "contrary to" principles set forth our decision Godfrey Georgia, 446 420 (1980). allowed "[n]o has addressed precise language issue," 795, "Supreme decisio[n] `on fours' instruction Cone's case,"4 796, but nevertheless concluded, series it, Maynard Cartwright, 486 356 (1988), Walton Arizona, 497 639 Shell Mississippi, 498 (1990) law dictated vague.5 797. Lastly, cured deficiency reviewing narrowed Dicks, 615 126 (1981). III 9 adjudicated "was contrary to, unreasonable application States." 2254(d)(1). . law" "if applies rule contradicts governing cases," confronts facts materially indistinguishable precedent arrives opposite ours." Williams Taylor, 529 362, 405 (2000). 10 summarized aptly Walton, supra, overruled grounds, Ring 536 584 (2002): 11 "When asked individual particular case, determine whether defining too provide guidance sentencer. If so, then attempt further defined terms and, definitions constitutionally sufficient, i. e., sentencer." 654. 12 These plain enough decided 242 (1976), upheld "`especially cruel'" express Court. 255 (joint opinion Stewart, Powell, STEVENS, JJ.). And, Gregg 153 refused invalidate "`outrageously wantonly vile, horrible inhuman torture, mind, aggravated battery victim,'" "there [was] reason assume Georgia will adopt open-ended construction" potentially applicable murder. 201 See generally Lewis Jeffers, 764, 774-777 (reviewing cases). 13 Indeed, Godfrey, 420, relied declaring controlling plurality precisely procedure. Like below, looked "nothing few words, standing alone, implies inherent restraint arbitrary capricious infliction sentence." 428. But stop there: It next evaluated "applied 432. resemble gave explanation say verdict "`factually substantiated,'" not. 432-433. explained, linchpin holding: "Had aggravator, Amendment Godfrey's notwithstanding instruct construction." Lambrix Singletary, 520 518, 531 (1997). S., 653-654; 363-365 (refusing countenance Oklahoma Appeals' when prisoner's sentence).6 14 however, possibility error applying aggravator. asserted "did apply, mention, interpretation cite [sic] Dicks," circumstance. "Instead," said, "the [state] simply, explicitly, satisfied labels `heinous, cruel,' without more, [respondent's] crime." Ibid. 15 do think can so lightly apply own law. said before, 2254(d) rulings,' Lindh Murphy, 521 320, 333, n. (1997), demands decisions given benefit doubt." (2002) curiam). To extent rested mistaken. basis Mitchell Esparza, 540 12, 16 (2003) curiam); Early Packer, 3, More importantly, find statement "simply, applied" does disclaim circumstance; thing states "explicitly" supported 2d, 95 (stating "indisputably record"). explain construed narrowly times; here. presumption "know follow law"); Lambrix, 532, 4; 653. That true such one, recognized compelled affirmatively assumed responsibility ensure case. Pritchett, 621 127, 139, 140 1981). 17 favor, tracked affirming sentences Accord, 432 (holding "[t]he ... satisfy criteria [for torture] laid out itself" construing circumstance). affirm — actions towards them "unspeakably brutal," "terror, horror" being killed, match, almost exactly, reasons Melson, 638 342, 367 1982), sufficient prong 139 (finding insufficient victim's "instantaneous"); Campbell, 664 281, 284 1984) "overwhelming" victim blunt object hands showed he defend himself). Similarly, findings "brutally skulls," "[b]lood house," helpless, 94-95, support mind. 367; Groseclose, 142, 151 1981); Strouth 999 759, 766 1999). sum, interpreting leaves little doubt case.7 18 remaining 654; 1981), Proffitt, 255: "directed `the conscienceless pitiless unnecessarily torturous 132. Sochor 504 527, (1992). overcome 19 subsequent stands proof meaningfully narrow class death-eligible offenders. Later year decided, elaborated meaning aggravator: 20 "Although [that cruel], contain phrase, `an victim' clear requires defendant inflicted [the] acts evincing depraved mind; meet test cruel." (citation omitted). 21 "torture," dies instantly, ibid., uncontradicted shows [the victim] injuries her arms hands, proving realize what happening, feel fear, try protect herself," 367. 364-365 (approving limitation suffered "some kind serious physical abuse" prior murder). "depravity mind," fact fired shotgun blast dead matter (explaining action falls short exhibited supra), that, "a killing wherein struck up thirty times, causing room covered spray flying blood, brains extrude through gaping hole skull," sufficed, 367.8 holdings, Court, ensured "principled basis" distinguishing between assessed Arave Creech, 507 463, 474 (1993). 22 assuming correct ensuring manner. law," 2254(d)(1), reverse judgment remand consistent opinion. 23 ordered. Notes: following circumstances: (1) felonies involving use threat violence person, (2) (3) purpose preventing lawful arrest prosecution, (4) knowingly created risk persons, murdered, during SeeState 94-95 1984). "`knowingly great act murder,'" considerable posed others day sufficiently close murders. strength jury, "harmless beyond reasonable doubt."Id., 95. Petitioner argues Circuit's regard tension Courts Appeals, petitioner order preserve existence mandatory-review statute. SeeMu'min Pruett, 125 192, 197 (CA4 1997) (Virginia); Martinez-Villareal Lewis, 80 1301, 1306 (CA9 1996) (Arizona); Kornahrens Evatt, 66 1350, 1362 1995) (South Carolina); Nave Delo, 62 1024, 1039 (CA8 (Missouri); Julius Johnson, 840 1533, 1546 (CA11 1988) (Alabama). unnecessary view 2254(b)(2) (an exhaust court). emphasize general matter, burden procedural permits identified having raised. Baldwin Reese, 541 27, 30-32 instructed follows: "`Heinous' means extremely wicked shockingly evil. "`Atrocious' outrageously vile. "`Cruel' designed inflict high pain, utter indifference enjoyment suffering others, pitiless." 794. postdated 1984 appeal, but, relying onStringer Black, 503 222, 225 (1992) (which Cartwright announce "new rule" resolution Godfrey), later "not material, controlling" Tennessee's face. 795. assume, deciding, conclusion. InRing (2002), rather judge, renders eligible. 609. retroactively, Schriro Summerlin, 542 348, 358 (2004), present appellate may, consistently Ring, construction. additional squarely formulated defendant. Brief Appellant 02C019403CR00052 (Sup. Ct. 1983), (arguing, onState 127 show suffered"). Likewise, response Appellee 34 (citing 1982)). alsoState 1981) raping stabbing victim, locking car trunk summer, circumstance); 1999) (quoting 1981 denying rehearing, cutting throat already rendered unconscious demonstrated mind" "cold-blooded, intentional, pitiless"); 126, 132 (affirming crime). JUSTICE GINSBURG, whom SOUTER BREYER join, concurring. 25 merits claim. 791-794 (2004); ante, 451. This indulges assumption. 456-457, 459, page. I agree once highest dispositively incumbent precedential every thereafter presenting demonstrate adherence pathmarking decision. 26 Today's decision, comprehend confined situation posited, confronted governed ruling. opinion, bears emphasis, grapple scenario: prisoner petitions exhausting remedies. anterior proceeding, issues. disposing left issues unaddressed. There warrant, assumption sub silentio, considered resolved Nothing discount simply overlooked. arbitrarily there, despite absence adverted

Classification Label: 8