Appeals

A Schrödinger’s motion that has vexed habeas practitioners: How long must a case gather dust in state court before I can seek federal habeas? Well, an Indiana man convicted of murder files a petition for post-conviction relief in state court, which proceeds to do absolutely nothing with the case for six years. Yikes! Indiana: Apologize for case languishing? No. It was the man's fault! And it was the pandemic! And it was a complicated case!

Today, commonsense won the argument in Parrish v. United States, No. 24-275 (June 12, 2025), holding that a civil litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.

Since AEDPA was passed in 1996, it’s become harder and harder for habeas petitioners to win even the most glaring of constitutional violations. See Stephen R. Reinhardt, The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court's Ever Increasing Limitations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences, 113 Mich. L. Rev. 1219 (2015), available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol113/iss7/3.

Today, the Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 vote held that District Courts may apply more lenient law at First Step Act re-sentencings. Hewitt v. United States, No. 23-1002 (June 26, 2025) (opinion).

Dentist writes two hefty morphine scripts after an eight-hour dental procedure; the patient tragically ODs and her blood test comes back triple the fatal amount. The jury finds that the dentist knowingly issued an illegal prescription; he's convicted and gets a 20-year sentence. Dentist appeals, arguing that the jury wrongfully heard testimony—over the defense’s objection—about an earlier forged-prescription and a profanity-laced firing.

Buckle up for a Fourth Circuit judge-on-judge benchslap! It stems from a man's guilty plea for robbing a gas station and the appellate waiver in his plea agreement waiving his right to appeal the sentence.

In Egbert v. Boule, No. 21-147, the Court held that the authority of a court to imply a cause of action under Bivens does not extend to Robert Boule’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim or his First Amendment retaliation claim.

Man in Puerto Rico charged with machine-gun-possession pleads guilty with an advisory prison range of 24 to 30 months. At sentencing, man request 24 months. Prosecutor requests 30 months. District court: Convinced that neither party's suggested sentence "reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law, protects the public from further crimes" imposed a prison sentence of 48 months — 18 months more than the top of the recommended sentencing range. First Circuit: Not so.

Today, in Shinn v. Martinez, No. 20-1009 (May 23, 2022), a divided Supreme Court held, under §2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state post-conviction counsel.  Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer and Kagan, JJ., joined.

New York man covicted of armed robbery is sentenced to 100 months' imprisonment plus five years of supervised release, during which he cannot commit a new crime. Man commits more crimes, including allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. But when she refuses to testify at his supervised release revocation hearing, the court relies on her signed statemet to police and revokes his supervised release. Man: that doesn't seem right. District court: it's right, and here's a 28-month sentence. Second Circuit (over a dissent): Seems right.