Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/285

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

546US1

Unit: $$U9

74

[08-22-08 14:08:29] PAGES PGT: OPIN

OCTOBER TERM, 2005 Per Curiam

BRADSHAW, WARDEN v. RICHEY on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 05–101. Decided November 28, 2005 Respondent was convicted in Ohio state court of aggravated murder, based on a theory of transferred intent, and he was sentenced to death. His petition for federal habeas relief was denied, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding (1) that transferred intent was not a permissible the­ ory for aggravated felony murder under Ohio law at the time of his conviction, and (2) that the performance of respondent’s trial counsel had been constitutionally deficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668. Held: The Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the transferred intent doc­ trine was inapplicable under state law and that respondent was entitled to relief under Strickland. The Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of the relevant state statute, as announced in its review of respondent’s case, directly contradicts the Sixth Circuit’s analysis. The State Su­ preme Court’s perfectly clear and unambiguous explanation that the transferred intent doctrine “ ‘is firmly rooted in Ohio law’ ” is binding on a federal court sitting in habeas. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 67–68. The Sixth Circuit also erred in its adjudication of the Strick­ land claim by, inter alia, relying on evidence not properly presented to the state habeas courts. Respondent contends that the State failed to preserve that objection before the Sixth Circuit. Because the relevant errors had not yet occurred, the Sixth Circuit has had no opportunity to address this argument, and it is better situated to do so in the first instance. Certiorari granted; 395 F. 3d 660, vacated and remanded.

Per Curiam. In 1987, respondent Kenneth T. Richey was tried in Ohio for aggravated murder committed in the course of a felony. Evidence showed that respondent set fire to the apartment of his neighbor, Hope Collins, in an attempt to kill his ex­ girlfriend and her new boyfriend, who were spending the night together in the apartment below. The intended vic­ tims escaped unharmed, but Hope Collins’ 2-year-old daugh­