Certiorari Grants
by: Grapkoch • June 12, 2011 • no comments
Nothing exceptionally useful out of the Court today for most criminal defense practitioners. However, for that small percentage of you that are involved in the PCR and habeas line of work, the grant of certiorari in Gonzalez v. Thaler may be noteworthy. The remaining criminal grants are probably not a game-changer for most of you. Nevertheless, they are briefly noted.
Construing AEDPA's One-Year SOL - Gonzalez v. Thaler
Gonzalez v. Thaler asks the Court to address several questions concerning how to construe AEDPA's mandate that all petitions for habeas review be filed within 1-year, running from "the date on which the judgment [of conviction] became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." Among those questions asked is:
- Whether there is a uniform federal standard for determining when all state direct review processes are deemed "concluded;"
- If so, whether the direct review process concludes upon issuance of the COA mandate, the denial of discretionary review by the state SC, or issuance of the COA's opinion; and
- If the ninety-day period for seeking certiorari is counted against a petitioner even where he did not seek review from the state SC.
In the opinion below, the Fifth Circuit held that the AEDPA clock began to run at the point when petitioner failed to timely request discretionary review of the state SC. And, under Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 331-35 (2007), that clock was not tolled while petitioner sought certiorari from the USSC.
More information on Gonzalez v. Thaler can be found on the SCOTUSblog case page, available here.
Cumulative Error under Brady/Giglio - Smith v. Louisiana
Smith v. Louisiana simply asks whether, under the facts of the case, the state courts erred in denying PCR relief for cumulative violations of Brady/Giglio. It does not appear that any substantive decisions were issued below at any stage of the proceedings. Thus, the link given goes directly to a PDF of the cert petition.
More information on Smith v. Louisiana can be found at the SCOTUSblog case page, available here.
Sentencing Federal Offenders Cumulative to State Sentences - Setser v. United States
Setser v. United States asks the Court to determine whether a district court has the authority to impose a federal sentence to run consecutively to a state sentence that has not yet been imposed, though is expected to be forthcoming. In the opinion below, the Fifth Circuit held that the "district court's imposition of [such] a consecutive sentence was well within the district court's authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584, and as a result, the district court's sentence was not illegal or unreasonable."
