Gonzalez v. Thaler
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 2, 2011
|Jan 10, 2012||8-1||Sotomayor||OT 2011|
Holding: Section 2253(c)(3) is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule. The failure of a certificate of appealability to “indicate” a constitutional issue does not deprive a court of appeals of jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. Moreover, for a state prisoner who does not seek review in a state’s highest court, the judgment becomes “final” for purposes of Section 2244(d)(1)(A) upon “expiration of the time for seeking such review.” The petitioner’s appeal in this case was therefore untimely.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on January 10, 2012. Justice Scalia filled a dissenting opinion.
- Opinion analysis: Scalia Dissent in AEDPA Case Warns of “Libertine, Liberating Romp” (Giovanna Shay)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler: Justices focus on COA issue (Giovanna Shay)
- Argument preview: Another technical AEDPA case implicating state postconviction and counsel (Giovanna Shay)
Briefs and DocumentsMerits Briefs For the Petitioner
- Brief for the Rutherford Institute
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Network
- Opinion below (5th Circuit)