Magwood v. Patterson
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Mar 24, 2010
|Jun 24, 2010||5-4||Thomas||OT 2009|
Disclosure: Akin Gump and Howe & Russell represent the petitioner in this case.
Holding: A state prisoner can often petition a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging her state court conviction or sentence. But she generally may not file a second or successive application for habeas relief. In Magwood, the defendant prevailed on habeas and had his case sent back to the state courts for a new sentencing proceeding, After the state court imposed the same sentence again, he again sought federal habeas relief. This time, he raised a new argument that could have been in his initial application but was not. The Supreme Court held that when a state prisoner obtains federal habeas relief and is re-sentenced, a habeas application challenging the new judgment is not â€œsecond or successive, even if the prisoner could have challenged the original sentence on the same ground.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Reversed and Remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas on June 24, 2010. Justice Kennedy dissented, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg and Alito.
- Challenge to new judgment not â€œsecond or successiveâ€ (Matthew Scarola)
- Court rules in favor of capital defendant in Magwood v. Patterson (Kevin Russell)
- What constitutes a "second or successive" petition in habeas challenges to death sentences? (Anna Christensen)
- Raising previously available claims in new death penalty habeas petitions (Anna Christensen)
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Billy Joe Magwood
- Joint Appendix
- Brief for Respondent Tony Patterson
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Billy Joe Magwood
 Amicus Briefs
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Federal Public Defenders and Community Defenders, and the Association of Federal Public Defenders in Support of Petitioner