Marshall v. Rodgers
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-382 | 9th Cir. | Not Argued | Apr 1, 2013 | TBD | Per Curiam | OT 2012 |
Holding: The Ninth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief to respondent Otis Lee Rodgers, who argued that the state courts violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when it failed to appoint an attorney to help him file a motion for a new trial, even when he had waived his right to an attorney on three previous occasions. Even assuming that, after a defendant validly waives his right to trial counsel, a post-trial, preappeal motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution, the Ninth Circuit"s holding that respondent"s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated was not supported by clearly established federal law; the courts of appeals may not rely on circuit precedent to refine or sharpen a general principle of Supreme Court jurisprudence into a specific legal rule that the Court has not announced.
Judgment: Granted, reversed in a per curiam opinion on April 1, 2013.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Petition of the day (Ben Cheng, December 11, 2012)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 09/25/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 29, 2012) |
| 10/10/2012 | Suggestion of mootness filed by respondent Otis Lee Rodgers. |
| 10/24/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 9, 2012. |
| 10/29/2012 | Application (12A440) to recall and stay pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
| 11/02/2012 | Response to application (12A440) requested by Justice Kennedy, due Wednesday, November 7, 2012, by noon EST. |
| 11/02/2012 | Response to application from respondent Otis Lee Rodgers filed. |
| 11/05/2012 | Response Requested . (Due December 5, 2012) |
| 11/05/2012 | Application (12A440) for recall of mandate and stay of proceedings denied by Justice Kennedy, without prejudice to renewal of the application in light of any further order of this Court with respect to the petition for a writ of certiorari or in light of further developments in the trial court. |
| 11/23/2012 | Brief of respondent Otis Lee Rodgers in opposition filed. |
| 11/23/2012 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Otis Lee Rodgers. |
| 12/05/2012 | 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 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 1, 2013. |
| 03/04/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013. |
| 03/18/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 22, 2013. |
| 03/19/2013 | Supplemental brief of respondent Otis Lee Rodgers filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/25/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 29, 2013. |
| 03/28/2013 | Supplemental brief of petitioner John Marshall, Warden filed. (Distributed) |
| 04/01/2013 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED. |
| 04/01/2013 | Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion) |
| 04/15/2013 | Petition for Rehearing filed. |
| 04/30/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013. |
| 05/20/2013 | Rehearing DENIED. |
| 05/20/2013 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Holding: The Ninth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief to respondent Otis Lee Rodgers, who argued that the state courts violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when it failed to appoint an attorney to help him file a motion for a new trial, even when he had waived his right to an attorney on three previous occasions. Even assuming that, after a defendant validly waives his right to trial counsel, a post-trial, preappeal motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution, the Ninth Circuit”s holding that respondent”s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated was not supported by clearly established federal law; the courts of appeals may not rely on circuit precedent to refine or sharpen a general principle of Supreme Court jurisprudence into a specific legal rule that the Court has not announced.
Judgment:”Granted, reversed“in a per curiam opinion on April 1, 2013.