Holly Wood, Petitioner v. Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. (558 U.S. 290)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 20, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 558 U.S. 290 · 130 S. Ct. 841
- Decided
- January 20, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 contains two provisions governing federal-court review of state-court factual findings. Under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(2), a federal court may not grant a state prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus based on a claim already adjudicated on the merits in state court unless that adjudication “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Under § 2254(e)(1), “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct,” and the petitioner “shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” In this case, petitioner, a capital defendant, challenges the key factual finding made by the Alabama state court that denied his application for postconviction relief: that his attorneys’ failure to pursue and present mitigating evidence of his borderline mental retardation was a strategic decision rather than a negligent omission. Petitioner argues that the state court’s finding was unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2) and that, in denying his federal habeas petition, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit erroneously conflated this standard with that of § 2254(e)(1), which petitioner…
Excerpt of a 25,629-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.