Burt v. Titlow
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-414 | 6th Cir. | Oct 8, 2013 | Nov 5, 2013 | 9-0 | Alito | OT 2013 |
Holding: The Sixth Circuit failed to apply the "doubly deferential" standard of review recognized by the Court's case law when it refused to credit the state court's reasonable factual finding and assumed that counsel was ineffective where the record was silent.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on November 5, 2013. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Court says more about federal habeas review than ineffective assistance in plea bargaining (Rory Little, November 6, 2013)
- Argument analysis: State seems likely to prevail in plea-bargaining case (Rory Little, October 9, 2013)
- A messy follow-up to Lafler and Frye: Can fun facts produce good law? (Rory Little, October 7, 2013)
- Court grants two cases (Lyle Denniston, February 25, 2013)
- Petition of the day (Ben Cheng, December 12, 2012)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 08/15/2012 | Application (12A166) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kagan. |
| 08/22/2012 | Response to application (12A166) requested by Justice Kagan, due Thursday, August 30, 2012, by 4 p.m. EDT. |
| 08/29/2012 | Response to application from respondent Vonlee Nicole Titlow filed. |
| 09/07/2012 | Application (12A166) denied by Justice Kagan. |
| 10/02/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 5, 2012) |
| 10/23/2012 | Brief of respondent Vonlee Nicole Titlow in opposition filed. |
| 10/23/2012 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Vonlee Nicole Titlow. |
| 11/05/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012. |
| 11/05/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Connecticut and 18 Other States filed. (Distributed) |
| 11/09/2012 | Reply of petitioner Sherry L. Burt, Warden filed. (Distributed) |
| 11/16/2012 | Record Requested . |
| 11/21/2012 | Record received from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Electronic and located on PACER. |
| 11/23/2012 | Record received from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (CD format). |
| 11/28/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013. |
| 01/07/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2013. |
| 01/14/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 18, 2013. |
| 02/04/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013. |
| 02/19/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 22, 2013. |
| 02/25/2013 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED. |
| 02/25/2013 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 03/11/2013 | Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent Vonlee Nicole Titlow. |
| 04/04/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 10, 2013. |
| 04/10/2013 | Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 26, 2013. |
| 04/29/2013 | Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent GRANTED. Valerie Newman, of Detroit, Michigan, is appointed to serve as counsel for the respondent in this case. |
| 06/10/2013 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) |
| 06/10/2013 | Brief of petitioner Sherry L. Burt, Warden filed. |
| 06/17/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
| 06/17/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Connecticut and 34 Other States filed. |
| 07/08/2013 | The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is further extended to and including July 17, 2013. |
| 07/08/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner. |
| 07/17/2013 | Brief of respondent Vonlee Nicole Titlow filed. |
| 07/17/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs from either party or neither party received from counsel for the respondent. |
| 07/22/2013 | CIRCULATED. |
| 07/23/2013 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
| 07/23/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 8, 2013. |
| 07/24/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitution Project filed. (Distributed) |
| 07/24/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of The Ethics Bureau at Yale filed. (Distributed) |
| 07/24/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed) |
| 07/24/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law filed. (Distributed) |
| 07/26/2013 | Proposal of counsel for petitioner to lodge copies of the official transcripts and opinion from Vonlee Titlow v. Frederick Toca, et al. (Oakland County Circuit Court No. 3-054451-CZ). |
| 08/02/2013 | Record from U.S.C.A. for 6th Circuit is electronic |
| 08/13/2013 | Opposition of respondent to petitioner's lodging proposal. |
| 08/16/2013 | Reply of petitioner Sherry L. Burt, Warden filed. (Distributed) |
| 08/30/2013 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
| 10/08/2013 | Argued. For petitioner: John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich.; and Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Valerie R. Newman, Assistant Defender, Detroit, Mich. |
| 10/11/2013 | Electronic record received from Court of Appeals of Michigan. |
| 11/05/2013 | Judgment REVERSED Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. |
| 12/09/2013 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Issue: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing respondent to maintain his claim of innocence; (2) whether a convicted defendant”s subjective testimony that he would have accepted a plea but for ineffective assistance, is, standing alone, sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the plea; and (3) whether”Lafler v. Cooper“always requires a state trial court to resentence a defendant who shows a reasonable probability that he would have accepted a plea offer but for ineffective assistance, and to do so in such a way as to “remedy” the violation of the defendant”s constitutional right.