Haynes v. Thaler/Statement Sotomayor

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Court Documents
Order in Pending Case
Dissenting Opinion

page 1, slip opinion

Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)

Statement of Sotomayor, J.


No. 12–6760 (12A369)



[November 13, 2012]

Statement of Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, respecting the grant of stay of execution.

In this case, a divided Fifth Circuit panel rejected Anthony Haynes' application for a certificate of appealability on the ground that this Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U. S. ___ (2012), "does not apply to Texas capital habeas petitioners." No. 12–70030, 2012 WL 4858204, *2 (Oct. 15, 2012). We recently granted certiorari to address precisely the question whether Martinez applies to habeas cases arising from Texas courts. See Trevino v. Thaler, 568 U. S. ___ (2012).

The dissent observes that on federal habeas review in this case, the District Court, after first concluding that Haynes had procedurally defaulted his claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective, ruled in the alternative that the claim failed on the merits. Post, at 2–3. But the Court of Appeals has never addressed the District Court's merits ruling, and has instead relied solely on procedural default. See 2012 WL 4858204, *2; Haynes v. Quarterman, 526 F. 3d 189, 194–195 (CA5 2008). The only appellate judge to consider the merits of Haynes' claim would have granted Haynes a certificate of appealability in his current case and stated that it was "difficult to conclude that Hayne[s] has not made a sufficient showing for a Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984),]

page 2, slip opinion violation as to his trial counsel." 2012 WL 4858204, *4 (Dennis, J., dissenting). Under these circumstances, rather than assume the correctness of the District Court's unreviewed merits decision, I believe a stay of execution is warranted to allow Haynes to pursue his claim on remand if this Court in Trevino rejects the single ground relied upon by the Fifth Circuit for denying Haynes' application for a certificate of appealability.

Ambox warning pn.svg The current edition of this document derives from the electronic version of the "slip opinion" posted online by the Supreme Court of the United States the day the decision was handed down. It is not the final or most authoritative version. It is subject to further revision by the Court and should be replaced with the final edition when it is published in a print volume of the United States Reports. The Court's full disclaimer regarding slip opinions follows:
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion.
Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls. (source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx)

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).