Burton v. Stewart (2006)
- Docket
- 05-9222
- Decided
- 2006-01-01
Summary
Question: 1) Is the holding in Blakely v. Washington a new rule or was it dictated by Apprendi v. New Jersey ? 2) If Blakely is a new rule, does its requirement that facts resulting in an enhanced statutory maximum be proved before a jury apply retroactively? Conclusion: Unanswered. In a 9-0 per curiam opinion, the Court ruled that Burton's habeas petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Burton had earlier filed a habeas petition challenging his conviction. Four years later, when he filed the habeas petition challenging only his sentence, Burton neglected to obtain the court authorization necessary for a "second or successive" petition. The Ninth Circuit had excused Burton's oversight because his first petition was filed before his sentence became final, but the Court held that Burton's second petition was nevertheless a "second or successive" petition requiring authorization. Since Burton's petition was invalid, the Justices did not address either of the questions presented.