Wilson v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15515
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Marion Wilson, Jr. was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Georgia; his state habeas petition in the Butts County Superior Court was denied after an evidentiary hearing addressing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel at the penalty phase.
- Wilson applied to the Supreme Court of Georgia for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, and the Georgia Supreme Court summarily denied the application in a one-line order.
- Wilson filed a federal habeas petition; the district court denied relief and the Eleventh Circuit panel initially affirmed treating the Georgia Supreme Court’s one-line denial as the last adjudication on the merits under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
- The Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc to decide whether federal courts must "look through" a state high court’s unexplained merits denial to review the last reasoned state-court opinion.
- The en banc majority held the Georgia Supreme Court’s summary denial is an adjudication on the merits, but rejected a mandatory look-through rule; federal courts need not presume a summary affirmance adopts the lower court’s reasoning and instead apply Richter’s framework to the last state-court adjudication.
- The court remanded the case to the panel for resolution of remaining issues; multiple judges dissented, arguing the court should presume a look-through to the last reasoned opinion absent strong evidence to the contrary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia Supreme Court denial of a certificate of probable cause is an adjudication on the merits for § 2254(d) | Wilson: summary denial should be treated as final adjudication on the merits (thus reviewable under AEDPA) | Georgia initially defended deference to the summary denial but later conceded it should be treated as an adjudication on the merits | Held: Yes — a Georgia summary denial of a certificate of probable cause is an adjudication on the merits under § 2254(d) |
| Whether federal courts must "look through" a state high court’s unexplained merits denial to the last reasoned state-court opinion when applying § 2254(d) | Wilson: Under Ylst, courts should look through to the last reasoned state decision and review that reasoning | Georgia and amicus argued Richter permits reviewing the last unexplained adjudication by hypothesizing reasonable grounds for denial; federal courts should not be required to "look through" | Held: No — federal courts are not required to “look through”; when the last adjudication is unexplained, apply Richter’s framework to the last state-court adjudication on the merits |
| Standard for reviewing an unexplained state-court merits denial under AEDPA | Wilson: must assess the actual reasoning of the lower court if available | State: permit hypothesizing reasonable bases that could have supported the unexplained denial (Richter) | Held: Apply Richter — a federal court must identify arguments that could have supported the state court’s unexplained denial and determine whether fairminded jurists could disagree |
| Interaction of Ylst (procedural-default presumption) and Richter (unexplained-denial review) | Wilson: Ylst requires looking through to determine the specific reasons when a reasoned decision exists below | Majority: Ylst governs identification of whether a later unexplained order rests on procedural grounds; it does not compel adopting the lower court’s detailed reasoning for AEDPA deference | Held: Ylst remains applicable to procedural-default questions, but it does not require federal courts to treat a summary affirmance as adopting the lower court’s specific rationale for AEDPA review |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (when a state-court decision is unexplained, federal courts must ask whether there was any reasonable basis for the denial)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) (where there is a reasoned state judgment, later unexplained orders ordinarily rest on the same ground; presumption can be rebutted)
- Greene v. Fisher, 132 S. Ct. 38 (2011) (§ 2254(d) applies to the last state-court adjudication on the merits)
- Brumfield v. Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269 (2015) (look-through appropriate where the later appellate denial is not an adjudication on the merits)
- Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011) (applied Richter framework in presence of a reasoned lower-court opinion; court assessed reasonableness of state-court conclusion)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (federal habeas review of state-court rulings is constrained by the record before the state court)
- Woods v. Donald, 135 S. Ct. 1372 (2015) (AEDPA presumes state courts know and follow the law; federal review must be highly deferential)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010) (federal courts must give state-court decisions the benefit of the doubt)