In Re Sparks
657 F.3d 258
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sparks seeks authorization to file a second or successive §2255 motion and appointment of counsel.
- Convicted by guilty plea of aiding and abetting a carjacking resulting in death committed at age sixteen; sentenced in 2001 to life without parole.
- Previously filed a §2255 motion that was denied.
- §2255(h) bars a second or successive motion unless new evidence or a retroactive new rule applies; Sparks relies on Graham v. Florida for a new retroactive rule.
- Sparks argues Graham created a new constitutional rule and is retroactive on collateral review; the court agrees Sparks may pursue a second §2255 motion.
- The Fifth Circuit grants authorization to file the second §2255 motion and denies appointment of counsel without prejudice to reurge in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sparks may file a second or successive §2255 motion under Graham's retroactivity. | Sparks asserts Graham is a new retroactive rule. | Respondent contends §2255(h) limits second motions absent exception. | Yes, Sparks may file a second §2255 motion. |
| Whether Graham is a new rule retroactive to collateral review under Teague. | Graham is a new rule and retroactive. | Retroactivity must be shown under Teague's exceptions. | Graham retroactive through Teague's first exception via multiple holdings. |
| Whether Graham's retroactivity is made retroactive by Tyler and related Teague reasoning. | Graham's rule is retroactive as per Tyler's two-cases doctrine. | Retroactivity is not automatic; must fit Teague framework. | Graham retroactive under Tyler's reasoning. |
| Whether Sparks is entitled to counsel appointment at this stage. | Requests appointment of counsel. | District court may address later. | Denied without prejudice. |
| What relief the court grants in this authorization proceeding. | Relief to file second §2255. | No substantive merits ruling here. | Grant to authorize filing second §2255; no merits ruling on the motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (bar on LWOP for juveniles who did not commit homicide; new rule retroactive for collateral review)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (retroactivity requires multiple holdings; how new rules become retroactive)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (two Teague retroactivity exceptions; first involves certain conduct; second concerns ordered liberty)
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (original retroactivity framework cited by Teague discussion)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (retroactivity discussion related to Teague exceptions)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (retroactivity of prohibiting execution of mentally retarded)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (retroactivity of prohibiting execution of juvenile offenders)
- Bell v. Cockrell, 310 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2002) (example of retroactivity application in Fifth Circuit)