George H. Baldwin v. Michael Reese (541 U.S. 27)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 2, 2004 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 541 U.S. 27 · 124 S. Ct. 1347
- Decided
- March 2, 2004
- Term
- October Term 2003
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. Before seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus, a state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies, 28 U. S. C. § 2254(b)(1), thereby giving the State the “ ‘ “opportunity to pass upon and correct” alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.’ ” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U. S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam) (quoting Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275 (1971)). To provide the State with the necessary “opportunity,” the prisoner must “fairly present” his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim. Duncan, supra, at 365-366; O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U. S. 838, 845 (1999). This case focuses upon the requirement of “fair presentation.” I Michael Reese, the respondent, appealed his state-court kidnaping and attempted sodomy convictions and sentences through Oregon’s state court system. He then brought collateral relief proceedings in the state courts (where he was represented by appointed counsel). After the lower courts denied him collateral relief, Reese filed a petition for discretionary review in the Oregon Supreme Court. The petition made several different legal claims. In relevant part, the petition asserted that Reese had received “ineffective assistance of both trial court and appellate…
Excerpt of a 10,479-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.