Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner v. Randy Joseph Moore (562 U.S. 115)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 19, 2011 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 562 U.S. 115 · 131 S. Ct. 733
- Decided
- January 19, 2011
- Term
- October Term 2010
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. This ease calls for determinations parallel in some respects to those discussed in today’s opinion in Harrington v. Richter, ante, p. 86. Here, as in Richter, the Court reviews a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting federal habeas corpus relief in a challenge to a state criminal conviction. Here, too, the case turns on the proper implementation of one of the stated premises for issuance of federal habeas corpus contained in 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d), the instruction that federal habeas corpus relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state court has adjudicated on the merits unless, among other exceptions, the state court’s decision denying relief involves “an unreasonable application” of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” And, as in Richter, the relevant clearly established law derives from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), which provides the standard for inadequate assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Richter involves a California conviction and addresses the adequacy of representation when counsel did not consult or use certain experts in pretrial preparation and at trial. The instant case involves an unrelated Oregon conviction and concerns the adequacy of representation in providing an assessment of a…
Excerpt of a 29,261-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.