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.
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 Documents
Merits Briefs For the Petitioner
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner
- Brief for the Rutherford Institute
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Network
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
- Opinion below (5th Circuit)