Jennings v. Stephens, 135 S. Ct. 793

Background

Robert Jennings was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death; he sought federal habeas relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during the punishment phase.
Jennings advanced three theories: (1) counsel failed to present evidence of his deprived background, (2) counsel failed to investigate/present evidence of mental impairment (the two "Wiggins" theories), and (3) counsel expressed resignation to a death sentence in closing (the "Spisak" theory).
The district court granted habeas relief on the two Wiggins theories (ordering release unless the State provided a new sentencing hearing or commutation within 120 days) but denied relief on the Spisak theory.
The State appealed and the Fifth Circuit reversed the Wiggins grants and held it lacked jurisdiction over Jennings’ Spisak argument because Jennings had not filed a cross-appeal or obtained a certificate of appealability (COA).
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether an appellee who defends a district-court judgment on alternative grounds must file a cross-appeal or obtain a COA to press that alternative ground on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an appellee who defends a favorable district-court habeas judgment on an alternative ground must file a cross-appeal to raise that ground on appeal	Jennings: as appellee he may urge any alternative ground in support of affirmance so long as it does not enlarge his rights or lessen the State’s under the judgment	State: Jennings needed to cross-appeal because each additional basis for habeas relief imposes an implied obligation on the State (to avoid repeating the error) and thus would lessen State’s rights at retrial	Court: An appellee may urge alternative grounds that do not enlarge his rights or lessen the adversary’s rights under the judgment; Jennings’ Spisak theory did not change the relief ordered so no cross-appeal required
Whether Helvering v. Pfeiffer and Alexander v. Cosden require cross-appeal for alternative defenses in this context	Jennings: Pfeiffer and Alexander concern multiple discrete tax liabilities and do not displace the American Railway rule	State: Pfeiffer and Alexander support requiring cross-appeal even when rights under the judgment stay the same	Court: Pfeiffer and Alexander are distinguishable (multiple discrete liabilities) and do not override American Railway’s rule allowing appellees to defend judgment on alternative grounds
Whether 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) COA requirement applies to appellee defenses of a judgment on alternative grounds	Jennings: §2253(c) governs appeals taken to the court of appeals, not arguments defending an appealed judgment	State: A COA is required for any substantive appellate challenge in a habeas case, including cross-appeals	Court: §2253(c) does not embrace the defense of a judgment on alternative grounds; COA not required here
Remedy on remand	Jennings: the Spisak claim should be considered by the Fifth Circuit on the merits	State: It should be barred for lack of cross-appeal/COA	Court: Reverse Fifth Circuit and remand for consideration of the Spisak claim

Key Cases Cited

United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425 (1924) (appellee may urge any matter in record to support judgment so long as it does not enlarge appellee’s rights or lessen adversary’s rights)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s duty to investigate and present mitigating evidence at capital sentencing)
Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (2010) (counsel’s statements in closing argument may constitute ineffective assistance at sentencing)
Helvering v. Pfeiffer, 302 U.S. 247 (1937) (addressing appeals involving multiple discrete tax liabilities)
Alexander v. Cosden Pipe Line Co., 290 U.S. 484 (1934) (same context; limitations on appellee’s ability to raise omitted matters when separate liabilities involved)
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (principle that courts enforce judgments, not opinions; limits on appellate adjustment of relief)
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (COA requirement is jurisdictional when an appeal is taken in a habeas case)
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (discussion of habeas remedies and conditional relief)
Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482 (1975) (conditional habeas grant interpreted as tied to the specific constitutional defect identified)