Court Opinion

ID: 9429489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:52.311202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:19.836264
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
concurring.
In my opinion, the claims presented to the District Court, to the Court of Appeals, and to this Court, by means of the second petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, are essentially the same as claims that had previously been presented in the first petition. While I join the Court’s disposition of the application and petition, I rely largely on the fact that the essence of each of petitioner’s current claims was raised in an earlier federal habeas corpus proceeding. Antone v. Strickland, 706 F. 2d 1534 (CA11), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 1003 (1983). Nothing alleged in this application persuades me that this Court should exercise its discretion to permit petitioner to relitigate these claims. I therefore find it unnecessary to consider the merits of petitioner’s arguments concerning hypothetical claims that were raised in the second petition but not in the first.