Holding: Because the Supreme Court of California's summary denial of Antonio Hinojosa's petition for federal habeas relief was on the merits, the Ninth Circuit should have reviewed Hinojosa's ex post facto claim through deferential, rather than de novo, review as mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
Judgment: Summarily reversed in a per curiam opinion on May 16, 2016. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders|
|Dec 24 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 28, 2016)|
|Jan 20 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 29, 2016.|
|Feb 29 2016||Brief of respondent Antonio A. Hinojosa in opposition filed.|
|Feb 29 2016||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Antonio A. Hinojosa.|
|Mar 15 2016||Reply of petitioner Scott Kernan, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 16 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 1, 2016.|
|Apr 11 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 15, 2016.|
|Apr 18 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 22, 2016.|
|Apr 25 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 29, 2016.|
|May 9 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 12, 2016.|
|May 16 2016||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|May 16 2016||Petition GRANTED. Judgment REVERSED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Sotomayor, dissenting. (Detached Opinion)|
|Jun 17 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|