Wilson v. Sellers

Last updated
Wilson v. Sellers
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 30, 2017
Decided April 17, 2018
Full case nameMarion Wilson v. Eric Sellers, Warden
Docket no. 16-6855
Citations584 U.S. ___ ( more )
138 S. Ct. 1188; 200 L. Ed. 2d 530
Case history
PriorWilson v. Warden, 774 F.3d 671 (11th Cir. 2014); remanded on rehearing en banc, 834 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 1203 (2017).
Subsequentpetition denied, 898 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir 2018)
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentGorsuch, joined by Thomas, Alito
Laws applied
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether a federal court sitting in a habeas corpus proceeding should "look through" a summary ruling to review the last reasoned decision by a state court. [1] [2] [3]

In 1997, a Georgia jury convicted Marion Wilson of murder and sentenced him to death. [4] In December 1999, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed on direct appeal. [5] Wilson next petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in state court. [6] The petition was denied in a written opinion by the state superior court, which was summarily affirmed by the state supreme court, and denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court. [4]

Wilson then filed another petition for habeas corpus, now in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, which was denied. [4] In December 2014, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, also rejecting Wilson's petition. [4] [7] In August 2016, the full en banc Eleventh Circuit again rejected the petition by a vote of 6–5, with Circuit Judge William H. Pryor Jr. writing for the majority and Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan and Jill A. Pryor writing dissents. [8]

The Court announced judgment in favor of the prisoner on April 17, 2018, reversing and remanding to the lower court by a vote of 6–3. [9] Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. [4] The Court held that the circuit had erred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 by failing to consider the reasoning in the lower, earlier, written, state court opinion. [4] Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented. [4]

In August 2018, the Eleventh Circuit again denied Wilson's petition, in another opinion by Judge Pryor. [10] Wilson was executed by lethal injection on June 20, 2019. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William H. Pryor Jr.</span> American judge (born 1962)

William Holcombe Pryor Jr. is an American lawyer serving as the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He is a former commissioner of the United States Sentencing Commission. Previously, he was the attorney general of Alabama, from 1997 to 2004.

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly, that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.

Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a US Supreme Court case involving the one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte the petition on that basis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fortunato Benavides</span> American judge

Fortunato Pedro Benavides is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His chambers are in Austin, Texas.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus and INA § 212(c) relief for deportable aliens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2007 term, which began October 1, 2007 and concluded September 30, 2008.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Henry Hance</span> American serial killer

William Henry Hance was an American serial killer and soldier who is believed to have murdered four women in and around military bases before his arrest in 1978. He was convicted of murdering three of them, and not brought to trial on the fourth. He was executed by the state of Georgia in the electric chair.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Native American country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Donovan Parks</span> 1996 murder in Georgia, United States

On March 28, 1996, Donovan Corey Parks, an American corrections officer, was murdered by two gang members in Baldwin County, Georgia. His two killers: Robert Earl Butts Jr. and Marion Wilson Jr. were executed for the crime by the state of Georgia via lethal injection, in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Wilson was the 1,500th person to be executed in the United States since capital punishment was resumed in 1976.

Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that an interrogation of a prisoner was not a custodial interrogation per se, and certainly it was not "clearly established federal law" that it was custodial, as would be required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Instead, the Court said, whether the interrogation was custodial depended on the specific circumstances, and moreover, in the particular circumstances of this case, it was not custodial. This decision overturned the rule of the Sixth Circuit, and denied the prisoner's habeas corpus petition.

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), was decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that limited which claims of Fourth Amendment violations could be made by state prisoners in habeas corpus petitions in federal courts. Specifically, a claim that the exclusionary rule had been broken would be barred if state courts had already given it a full and fair hearing. The decision combined two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day with similar issues, one filed by Lloyd Powell and the other, titled Wolff v. Rice, filed by David Rice.

Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction council, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.

Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' as-applied challenges to methods of execution.

Shoop v. Twyford, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' habeas corpus petitions.

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the jurisdiction of federal courts over immigration appeals.

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case which considered whether criminal defendants ever have a right to the effective assistance of counsel in collateral state post-conviction proceedings. The Court held that a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel if there was no counsel or ineffective counsel in an initial-review collateral proceeding.

Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court considering whether a prisoner's appeal of proposed execution procedures was equivalent to a habeas corpus petition. The court held unanimously that an appeal of proposed execution procedures is different from a habeas corpus petition because it is not an appeal of a conviction or sentence.

References

  1. ↑ "Wilson v. Sellers". LII / Legal Information Institute. 2017-10-26. Retrieved 2018-03-07.
  2. ↑ "Wilson v. Sellers - Ballotpedia" . Retrieved 2018-03-07.
  3. ↑ "Supreme Court hears arguments in criminal procedure cases". www.jurist.org. Retrieved 2018-03-07.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Note, The Supreme Court, 2017 Term — Leading Cases , 132 Harv. L. Rev. 407 (2018).
  5. ↑ Wilson v. State , 525S.E.2d339 (Ga.1999).
  6. ↑ Note, Patrick J. Fuster, Taming Cerberus: The Beast at AEDPA's Gates , 84 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1325 (2017).
  7. ↑ Wilson v. Warden, 774F.3d671 (11th Cir.2014).
  8. ↑ Wilson v. Warden, 834F.3d1227 (11th Cir.2016) (en banc).
  9. ↑ Vladeck, Steve (18 April 2018). "Opinion analysis: Justices reaffirm "look-through" presumption in federal habeas review of state-court decisions". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved 8 July 2019.
  10. ↑ Wilson v. Warden, 898F.3d1314 (11th Cir.2018).
  11. ↑ Kim, Catherine (20 June 2019). "Marion Wilson was the 1,500th person executed in the US since 1976". Vox Media . Retrieved 8 July 2019.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.