Skip to content
Name: Johnson v. Lee
Case #: 15-789
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 05/31/2016

California's procedural bar requiring defendants to raise available claims on direct appeal instead of by habeas petition is adequate to preclude federal review. Lee and her boyfriend were convicted of two counts of first degree murder. In 1999, her claims on direct appeal were rejected. She sought federal review, raising mostly new claims that had not been raised on appeal. The district court stayed federal proceedings while Lee pursued a state habeas petition. The California Supreme Court denied relief, citing In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756. The district court then dismissed her petition as procedurally defaulted. The Ninth Circuit…

View Full Summary
Name: Nitschke v. Belleque
Case #: 10-36121
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 05/24/2012

A state court finding that a federal claim is procedurally defaulted, which merely categorizes a federal claim without ruling on the merits, rests on independent state grounds and federal review is precluded. Petitioner was convicted in Oregon of manslaughter and other offenses. The trial court found him to be a dangerous offender and thereby increased his sentence under Oregon's "dangerous offender" law. On appeal defendant raised an Apprendi claim regarding the trial court's factual finding at sentencing. (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466.) The claim was found forfeited by the state appellate court because it was not raised…

View Full Summary
Name: Hill v. Roe
Case #: 00-56480
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 02/05/2003
Subsequent History: Previous opn. at 298 F.3d 796 (amended here) & rehrg. denied

When the California Supreme Court denied Hill’s habeas petition, it issued a letter stating in full: "Petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. (In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225; People v. Hill (1973) 9 Cal.3d 784, 786, 787.)" The federal district court held that the Supreme Court’s citation to Waltreus did not bar federal court review, but that its citation to Hill did because it’s reference to Hill implies a denial of the state habeas on an independent and adequate state procedural bar. Under the independent and adequate state grounds doctrine, federal courts are barred…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanchez
Case #: H022692
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/19/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 11/13/02: S110263

The gang registration requirement of Proposition 21 is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and does not violate the rights to privacy, against unreasonable search, against self-incrimination, to counsel, and against cruel and unusual punishment. It also does not violate the single subject…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Renteria
Case #: B146784
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/31/2001
Subsequent History: None

The trial court reversibly erred under the state constitutional right to a jury trial, when , after substituting an alternate juror for one who fell ill, it failed to instruct the jury sua sponte to disregard its previous deliberations and begin anew. The error was reversible where the jury, which had been deadlocked when the juror fell ill, reached a verdict a half hour after the seating of the alternate, and the case was otherwise…

View Full Summary
Name: Arkansas v. Sullivan
Case #: 00-262
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 05/29/2001
Subsequent History: None

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed suppression of a search otherwise supported by probable cause to arrest for a fine-only traffic violating (speeding) on the ground that the officer arrested appellant only upon a pretext and thus had an improper subjective motivation. The U.S. Supreme Court held this decision was "flatly contrary" to its controlling precedent that an officer's subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis. Moreover, under Oregon v. Hass (1975) 420 U.S. 714, a state supreme court may not impose greater protections under the federal constitution than the U.S. Supreme Court…

View Full Summary