Magwood v. Patterson (2009)
- Docket
- 09-158
- Decided
- 2009-01-01
Summary
Question: When a person is resentenced after having obtained federal habeas corpus relief from an earlier sentence, is a claim in a federal habeas petition challenging the new sentencing judgment a "successive claim," and therefore prohibited, if the petitioner could have challenged his previously imposed sentence on the same constitutional grounds? Conclusion: No. The Supreme Court held that because Mr. Magwood's habeas application challenges new judgments for the first time, it is not "second or successive" under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") With Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, the Court determined that the text of the AEDPA counseled in favor of the Court's conclusion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Sonia Sotomayor, concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. He noted that the Court was not expanding its holding from Panetti v. Quarterman . Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel A. Alito, dissented. He argued that a straightforward application of Panetti , consistent with all of the courts of appeals to rule on the issue, would have dictated an opposite result from the Court's.