Stephen Newman v. Timothy Wengler
790 F.3d 876
9th Cir.2015Background
- Newman was Idaho prisoner convicted of attempted rape in 2008 and sentenced to 15 years (7.5 years fixed).
- Idaho Court of Appeals and Idaho Supreme Court affirmed and denied postconviction relief.
- Newman filed a federal habeas petition alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment unlawful searches and seizures at trial.
- The district court denied relief based on Stone v. Powell, holding the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claims in state court.
- The Ninth Circuit held Stone v. Powell survives AEDPA and bars relief, requiring an analysis under that doctrine.
- The court concluded Newman had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stone v. Powell survives AEDPA to bar habeas review | Newman argues AEDPA abrogates Stone. | Wenlger argues Stone remains valid despite AEDPA. | Stone survives; AEDPA does not abrogate it. |
| Whether Newman had a full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claims in state court | Newman contends the state court proceedings were unfairly decided. | Wenlger contends Newman had three trial hearings and opportunities to argue; the opportunity was sufficient. | Newman had a full and fair opportunity; Stone bars federal review. |
| Whether Stone’s application bars relief despite AEDPA’s standards | Stone provides a separate basis to deny relief independent of § 2254(d). | AEDPA standards govern, but Stone remains applicable. | Stone remains applicable and bars relief under habeas corpus proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (federal habeas review barred after full and fair state-court opportunity on Fourth Amendment claim)
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) (AEDPA precondition, not entitlement, to relief)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (concerning exhaustion and scope of habeas review)
- Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008) (statutory silence on scope of relief; discretion to adjust writ's scope)
- Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) (Supreme Court retains prerogative to overrule its decisions)
- United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007) (reiterates AEDPA framework and prudential limits on habeas relief)