Magwood v. Patterson

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 “second or successive,” even if the prisoner could have challenged the original sentence on the same ground.

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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Challenge to new judgment not “second or successive”
• Court rules in favor of capital defendant in Magwood v. Patterson
• What constitutes a "second or successive" petition in habeas challenges to death sentences?
• Raising previously available claims in new death penalty habeas petitions

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

• Brief for Petitioner Billy Joe Magwood
• Joint Appendix
• Brief for Respondent Tony Patterson
• Reply Brief for Petitioner Billy Joe Magwood

[edit] 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

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply