Kernan v. Hinojosa
136 S. Ct. 1603
| SCOTUS | 2016Background
- Hinojosa, serving a 16-year sentence, was validated as a prison-gang associate and placed in California’s secured housing unit.
- At validation he could still earn future good-time credits; in 2010 California amended Penal Code §2933.6 to bar future credits for gang-validated inmates in secured housing (retaining past credits).
- Hinojosa filed state habeas challenging application of the amended law as an ex post facto violation; Orange County Superior Court denied for improper venue (wrong county).
- Hinojosa sought relief up the state ladder: the Court of Appeal summarily denied, and the California Supreme Court summarily denied without explanation.
- On federal habeas, the District Court applied AEDPA’s deferential standard and denied relief; the Ninth Circuit “looked through” the state high court’s silent denial to the Superior Court’s venue ruling, treated the claim as not decided on the merits, and granted habeas relief.
- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding the California Supreme Court’s unexplained denial was a merits decision (so AEDPA applied), because the Superior Court’s venue ground could not have been the basis for the state high court’s summary denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state high court’s unexplained summary denial is a merits adjudication for AEDPA purposes | Hinojosa: the California Supreme Court’s silent denial should be presumed to adopt the last reasoned state-court opinion (Superior Court’s venue dismissal), so it is not a merits decision | Kernan/State: the California Supreme Court’s unexplained denial is a merits decision here because the Superior Court’s venue ground could not have been the basis for the high court’s denial | Court held: The California Supreme Court’s summary denial was on the merits; AEDPA applies |
| Whether the Ninth Circuit may “look through” a silent state-court denial to a lower court’s procedural ruling | Hinojosa: Ylst presumption supports looking through to the Superior Court’s venue ruling | Kernan/State: Ylst does not apply because strong evidence rebuts the presumption here | Court held: Ylst’s look-through presumption is rebutted because improper venue could not explain the state high court’s denial |
| Whether AEDPA’s deferential standard prevented Ninth Circuit’s grant of habeas relief | Hinojosa: AEDPA does not apply so Ninth Circuit could review de novo | Kernan/State: AEDPA applies, so Ninth Circuit was bound to deferential review and its grant was improper | Court held: AEDPA applies; Ninth Circuit erred in refusing to apply deferential review |
| Whether the court decides the ex post facto claim on the merits | Hinojosa: Ninth Circuit granted relief on merits after treating claim as not AEDPA-barred | Kernan/State: Court did not decide the substantive ex post facto question; only held AEDPA applies | Held: Supreme Court expressed no view on the ex post facto merits; remanded effect is that AEDPA governs review |
Key Cases Cited
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) (presumption that unexplained state-court orders adopt reasoning of last reasoned decision unless rebutted)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (summary state-court denials can be merits adjudications for AEDPA)
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) (ex post facto prohibition in penal context)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (procedures for seeking California Supreme Court review via original habeas petition)
- Nevarez v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2014) (Ninth Circuit decision holding similar state denials not contrary to clearly established federal law)