*1
WARDEN
THOMPSON,
COLEMAN
24, 1991
June
25, 1991 Decided
February
Argued
89-7662.
No.
*4
argued
petitioner.
him
H. Hall
the cause for
With
John
Price.
on the briefs were Daniel J.
and Richard G.
Goldstein
Attorney
of
General
Curry,
Assistant
Senior
R.
Donald
respondent.
him
With
for
argued
cause
Virginia,
Attorney
Lane
H.
Terry,
General,
Mary Sue
the brief'were
Stephen D. Ro
Attorney General,
Deputy
Kneedler, Chief
Jerry
Slonaker,
P.
Attorney General, and
Deputy
senthal,
*
Attorney General.
Assistant
Senior
opinion the Court.
of
delivered
O’Connor
Justice
respect
It concerns
federalism.
about
a case
This
the States’
and
the States
courts owe
prisoners in federal
reviewing
of state
the claims
when
rules
corpus.
I
Roger
jury
Keith
Virginia,
County,
convicted
Buchanan
A
sentence
fixed the
capital
and
rape
murder
and
of
Coleman
of
for the State
filed
were
urging affirmance
curiae
of amici
* Briefs
Kentucky, and
of
Cowan, Attorney General
J.
by Frederic
Kentucky et al.
Attorneys
General,
by the
General
Attorney
and
Sonego, Assistant
Ian G.
Alabama, Winston
Jimmy
of
Evans
as follows:
respective States
for their
III of
Oberly
Colorado,
M.
Charles
Arkansas,
Norton of
Gale
Bryant of
Hawaii,
Florida,
Price III of
of
Warren
A. Butterworth
Delaware, Robert
Illinois, Linley E. Pear
of
Idaho,
Burris
Roland W.
of
Larry EchoHawk
Humphrey
H.
Curran, Jr., Maryland, Hubert
of
Indiana,
Joseph
J.
son of
Missouri,
of Mon
Racicot
Marc
of
Minnesota,
L. Webster
William
III of
Nevada, Robert
Papa
Nebraska,
Del
of
Frankie Sue
of
tana, Don Stenbert
Carolina, Ernest
Thornburg North
H.
of
Jersey, Lacy
New
Del
of
J.
Tufo
Carolina, Paul
of South
Medlock
Jr.,
T. Travis
Preate,
Pennsylvania,
of
D.
Palumbo
and Mario
Eikenberry Washington,
Utah, Ken
Dam
Van
Morales, Attorney Gen
et al. Dan
of Texas
Virginia; for
State
West
General, Mary F. Kel
Attorney
Assistant
Texas,
Pryor, First
Will
eral
Robert
Hodge,
General, Michael P.
Attorney
ler,
Assistant
Executive
At
Griffey, Assistant
Parker,
Portman
Margaret
Walt,
Dana E.
S.
respective States
their
Attorneys
General,
General
by torneys
California,
Lungren of
Alaska, Daniel E.
E. Cole
Charles
as follows:
Oklahoma, Mark
Henry of
Robert H.
Mississippi,
Moore of
C.
Michael
Wyoming; and for
Meyer of
Dakota,
Joseph B.
of South
Barnett
Scheidegger.
by Kent S.
Legal Foundation
Justice
Criminal
*5
imposed
for the murder.
death
The trial court
the death
Virginia Supreme
sentence, and the
Court affirmed both the
convictions and the sentence. Coleman v. Commonwealth,
(1983).
31,
Va.
307 S.
2d 864
E.
This Court denied cer-
tiorari.
Coleman then filed a for a writ raising County, the Circuit Court for Buchanan numerous federal constitutional claims that he had not raised on direct appeal. 2-day evidentiary hearing, After a the Circuit Court against App. ruled on Coleman all claims. 3-19. The court September judgment entered its final on 4, 1986. appeal
Coleman filed his notice of with the Circuit Court on days entry judgment. 7, 1986, 33 October after the of final subsequently petition appeal filed a Coleman for in the Vir- Supreme ginia Virginia, Court. The Commonwealth of appellee, appeal. filed a motion to dismiss the The sole ground urged for dismissal in the motion was that Coleman’s appeal Virginia Supreme notice of had filed been late. Court 5:9(a) provides appeal Rule no shall be allowed unless a appeal days notice of is filed with the trial within judgment. final Virginia Supreme immediately Court did not act on parties motion, Commonwealth’s and both filed several subject on the
briefs the motion to dismiss and on the mer- petition. May its of the claims in 19, Coleman’s 1987, On Virginia Supreme following issued the order, Court dismiss- ing appeal: Coleman’s appellant,
“On 4, December 1986came the counsel, petition above-styled and filed a for in the case. “Thereupon appellee, Attorney came the Gen- Virginia, petition eral of and filed a motion to dismiss the appeal; appellant on 19, December 1986 the filed a opposition memorandum to the motion to dismiss; on appellee reply appel- December 1986the filed a appellee lant’s memorandum; December 1986the *6 728 appeal; on petition for the opposition to brief a
filed oppo- surreply in filed appellant 1986the December January on and dismiss; appellee’s motion sition reply brief. appellant filed the 1987 to dismiss motion the whereof, “Upon consideration App. appeal is dismissed.” petition for the granted and 25-26. Bass, 484 Coleman again certiorari. denied Court
This (1987). 918 S.U. corpus in habeas of writ petition for next filed Coleman of District Western the for Court District States United the four presented petition, Coleman his Virginia. appeal in the direct on raised had he claims constitutional Virginia raised had he claims seven and Supreme Court concluded Court District The habeas. time first the Virginia by the his of dismissal the of virtue that, procedurally Copurt had Coleman habeas, in state Supreme The District Ap. 38-39. claims. seven the defaulted all 11 merits the to address on went nonetheless Court on all against Coleman ruled court The claims. Coleman’s 40-52. petition. Id., the denied claims Circuit Fourth Appeals for the Court States United The Cole (1990). that held The 139 F. 2d 895 affirmed. presented for had he that all of defaulted man had argued the Vir that Coleman habeas. in state time first expressly” stated “clearly and not Supreme had Court ginia procedural a based was in state decision that it treat could courts therefore default, S. Reed, of Harris rule under such Vir disagreed. It concluded Circuit Fourth The require “plain statement” had met Supreme Court ginia was dismiss granting a motion Harris ment 143. 2d, F. grounds. 895 procedural solely on based Supreme deci- Court's Virginia held Circuit Fourth grounds adequate independent sion rested on the default. to excuse had not shown cause that Coleman consequence, federal review As a at 143-144. Id., proceed- only presented in the state habeas claims Coleman granted ing certiorari, Id., at 144. We was barred. concerning (1990), issues resolve several U. S. relationship and federal defaults between *7 and now affirm. review,
h—IrH A question federal law decided not review a This Court will by court on a state if of that rests the decision a state court question independent ground and of the that is law g., judgment. adequate support See, e. Fox Film (1935);Klinger Corp. v. Mis- 207, 210 Muller, 296 U. S. v. (1872). applies This rule whether 263 13 Wall. souri, procedural. ground See, or is substantive the state law Georgia, supra; 441 g., 295 Herndon v. U. S. Film, Fox e. judg- of a state court of direct review In the context ground adequate independent is state doctrine ment, the power jurisdictional. has no to review a this Because Court judg- support sufficient to that is state law determination ground independent any for the resolution of ment, judgment therefore and would not affect the decision could advisory. 117, 125-126 Pitcairn, 324 U. S. Herb v. See be (1945)(“We advisory opinion, permitted an to render are not judgment state be rendered would if the same laws, of federal our review its views after we corrected court advisory opinion”). nothing more than amount to could adequate independent applied state have We only ground review of state court own our doctrine deciding judgments, federal district courts whether but corpus prisoners in habeas state address the claims of should applies bar federal habeas when The doctrine actions. 730 prisoner’s federal claims address a declined
a state court procedural a state to meet prisoner failed had because judgment rests cases, the requirement. In these grounds. See adequate independent (1977); 87 (1979). Ulster Sykes, 72, 81, Wainwright U. S. gen See S. County Allen, U. Court supra, erally 262. Harris, adequate independent and application of the for
The basis different is somewhat ground federal habeas doctrine re- Court When this Court. review than on direct pursuant review on direct decision views a state judgment; reviewing if § resolution 1257,it is C. U. S. judgment, there is noth- question affect cannot a federal the case habeas. This is not ing to do. Court prisoner’s ha- a state court reviews district When a federal §2254, it must pursuant C. corpus petition to 28 U. S. beas custody petitioner in violation “in whether decide Ibid. the United States.” or treaties or laws Constitution *8 judgment, lawfulness but the a review court does Fay simpliciter. 372 custody Noia, See petitioner’s (1963). 391, 430 U. S. custody pursuant to a prisoner in is
Nonetheless, a state prisoner a court releases habeas judgment. a federal When judgment an that rests on inde- pursuant court state to a held ground, ineffective adequate it renders pendent state and completely if had reversed just as this Court rule state (Harlan, J., id., judgment review. See on direct state ignores dissenting). the habeas court case, In such a prisoner. holding legitimate reasons State’s independent application context, In the habeas grounded in concerns ground is adequate doctrine state and dis- a federal rule, comity Without federalism. habeas what Court do in be able court would trict pris- state would habeas offer review; direct not do on could by independent supported ade- custody was whose oners quate grounds an end run around the limits of this jurisdiction Court’s and a means to undermine the State’s in- enforcing its terest laws. independent adequate ground support-
When the
custody
ing
petitioner’s
de-
play.
fault, an additional concern comes into
This Court has
long
prisoner’s
petition
held that a state
federal habeas
prisoner
if
should be dismissed the
has not exhausted avail-
any
able
his
state remedies as to
federal claims.
Ex
See
(1886).
parte Royall,
Lundy,
117U. S.
See also Rose v.
(1982);
Peoples,
U. S. 509
Castille
After a state court that wishes to look to federal law guidance holding relying or anas alternative while still independent adequate ground pre- an and can avoid the sumption by stating “clearly expressly [its decision] and separate, adequate, independ- is . . . based on bona fide grounds.” Id., ent at 1041. (1985), Mississippi, ap-
In Caldwell v. U. S. we plied Long presumption alleged in the of an context inde- pendent adequate procedural ground. Caldwell, challenged part prosecu- criminal at trial defendant, closing argument jury, tor’s to the but he did not raise the appeal Mississippi Supreme issue on Court. That sponte, discussing court raised the issue sua this federal question length opinion deciding against it Cald- general well. The court also made reference to its rule that issues not raised on are deemed waived. The State argued that the this Court default constituted independent adequate ground Mississippi for the noting argument, rejected this We decision.
court’s primarily on federal appears to “‘fairly rest *11 decision state the that express statement and no clear was and there law,”’ procedural default relying on was Supreme Mississippi Court supra, Long, quoting Id., at ground. independent anas 1040. at firstWe eases. review direct were Long Caldwell and in decisions ambiguous court state problem of considered ground adequate state and independent application of the S. Reed, U. in Harris case habeas federal in a doctrine petition for state a prisoner, filed state Harris, a ren- had counsel alleging trial his that relief, postconviction court dismissed trial state The assistance. ineffective dered In affirmed. of Illinois Appellate Court petition, and rule Illinois referred Appellate Court order, the “ [on presented di- have been could [issues] which ‘those at Id., waived.’” considered are not, were appeal], but rect his raised have Harris could concluded The court 258. Nonetheless, review. direct on claims assistance ineffective mer- on the rejected Harris’ and court considered habeas. for federal petitioned then Harris its. nearly identical was this Court presented to situation fairly decision court state a Long Caldwell: and to that context in a law federal primarily on appeared to rest if obligation to determine has court a federal which adequate independent and anon rested decision court state adopt[ed] problem, we a common with “Faced ground. state applied Harris supra, 263. Harris, solution.” a common adopted Court presumption habeas Appellate Illinois Because cases. Long review direct for rely on waiver expressly” “clearly and not did Court counsel assistance rejecting ineffective Harris’ ground was applied Harris Long presumption claims, supra, 266. Harris, habeas. from barred corpus review on courts Harris, federal After of state review on direct claims, like this Court prisoner judgments, presume independent court will that there no adequate ground for state decision when the “fairly appears primarily federal law, decision to rest or to adequacy law, be interwoven with the federal and when the independence any possible ground state law is not opinion.” Long, supra, clear from the face of the at 1040- 1041. if the decision of the last habeas, state court to petitioner presented fairly ap which the his federal claims peared primarily to rest on resolution of those or to claims, be clearly claims, interwoven with those and did not and ex pressly rely independent adequate ground, on an may petition.* federal court address the
Ill A presumption Long Coleman contends that the Har- applies precludes ris this case and bar to habeas because Virginia Supreme dismissing Court’s order Coleman’s “clearly expressly” did not state that it was based procedural grounds. on state Coleman reads Harris too broadly. predicate application pre- A of the Harris sumption is that the decision of the last state court which to petitioner presented fairly appear his federal claims must primarily to rest on federal law or to be interwoven with fed- eral law. language opinion
Coleman relies on other Harris. That procedural announces that “a default does not bar consider- claim ation of a federal on either direct or habeas review un- rendering judgment less the last court the case apply petitioner * This rule not if the failed to does exhaust state reme petitioner required present dies would be and the court to which to his requirement claims in order meet the exhaustion would now find the procedurally procedural In such a case there is a barred. default purposes regardless habeas of the decision of federal of the last state claims. See Harris petitioner actually presented his court to which the Reed, (1989) J., concurring); Teague 255, (O’Connor, 489 U. S. 269-270 Lane, 489 U. S. 297-298 judgment rests on a state clearly expressly its that states (internal quotation swpra, at 263 Harris, bar.” omitted). rule, its contends that marks Coleman just judgments, applies those court to all terms, primarily fairly appear federal law. rest that It is unmistak- context. the rule out of has read Coleman presumption applies ably in ha- the same Harris clear that adopted Long review in direct cases and Caldwell beas (“Faced at 263 with Harris, S., See in this Court. solution”); adopt problem id., see also a common common we (“Under today, court need do noth- a state our at 264 decision pre- preclude do to ing review than it must tomore review”). quoted passage purports Indeed, clude direct review.” Har- direct or habeas rule “on either state the change being the rule for case, could not a federal habeas ris, direct and habeas review to both review; the reference direct applies precisely as plain the same rule Harris makes Long presumption, Long. and hence Harris describes fairly only applying in which “‘it in those cases own, primarily on appears rested its decision that the state Long, quoting supra, Harris, law.’” exposition particular of its rule That one S., at 1040. U. application predicate does not mention Harris opinion. change holding presumption does not presumption ap- urges rule: a broader Coleman *13 petitioner presented plies his a habeas in which in all cases rule makes state court. This little claims to the upon “[i]t . . ‘incumbent cases, is . In direct review sense. as- for itself . . . whether the Court ... ascertain adequately sup- independently ground and non-federal serted Long, supra, judgment.’” [state court] ports (1931). Bryan, quoting 282 U. S. Abie Bank State Similarly, ascertain for them- courts must federal habeas custody pursuant petitioner in to a state court is if the selves adequate independent judgment state and rests presump- Long grounds. Harris and In cases which applies, that the relevant will conclude federal courts tion independent judgment and ad- not rest on an does state presumption, ground. equate like all conclusive state designed presumptions, excessive in- the costs of to avoid per quiry in al- achieve the correct result se rule will where explained in a different context: cases. As we most all require the to make broad “Per se rules . . . Court general generalizations that do not fit the .... Cases judgment may per rule reflects the arise, but a se ization sufficiently important common or are not that such cases necessary identify expense justify the time and Sylvania Inc., V., T. Inc. v. GTE them.” Continental n. 16 36, 50, 433 U. S. applied, however, situations
Per rules should not be se empirical generalization as an matter; is incorrect where the disappears presumption justification for a conclusive presumption application will not reach the cor- when Long presump- and Harris most of the time. The rect result majority in which a state in the of cases tion works because fairly appears primarily on federal law to rest court decision and the state court does law, or to be interwoven with such relying independent plainly that it is on an ade- state quate ground, in fact the state court decision did not state independent adequate ground. ac- We rest on an cept cases where there was in those small number of errors independent adequate ground in ex- nonetheless inquiry. change significant in the reduction costs very predicate when the factual The tradeoff is different fairly ap- cases in which it does not not exist. those does primarily pear its decision on fed- that the state court rested simply grounds, it is not true that the “most reasonable eral judgment explanation” rested on federal is that the state grounds. Long, supra, at 1041. Yet Coleman would Cf. apply presumption courts a conclusive of no have the federal grounds every independent adequate case presented prisoner his federal claims a to state which a state *14 state fairly appears that it regardless whether of court, accept rule, a such cannot We claims. those addressed court that expand unacceptably the risk greatly and it would for prisoners in of claims the federal review will courts federal independent resting on judgments custody pursuant to by applying efficiency gained Any grounds. adequate state inquiry avoiding thereby into presumption, and a conclusive respect the loss the cost simply worth not is law, state entail. a rule such would that the State for presumption applicable is broadly argued a may that be It courts Once announced: it is after not counterfactual independent ade- resting on decisions their that know in federal honored grounds bewill quate state express statement only a clear is if there habeas rele- all provide a statement such will courts default, these Even help Coleman. argument does This cases. vant presump- establishing a read as assuming be can Harris that its order Supreme Virginia issued Court cases, in all tion Har- decided this Court dismissing Coleman’s before express anof order, absence court As ris. very informative. is not procedural default statement it here, for rule such establish any event, decline we in ex- courts and state the States place burdens would are,We courts. the federal very change benefit little for empirical as- that confident from matter, far initial as an is not It correct. rule is argument for such sumption theof pro- pains take will courts necessarily that state case in all procedural default express statement a clear vide courts State the rule. announcement after even cases, seeing their dignitary interest presumably have court, ignored habeas a federal are not law decisions prisoner of state paid review price but most a federal When paid the State. is claims custody for prisoner in state of a considers State reasons, it adequate state law independent and price pays State respond. is the It must *15 delay uncertainty the enforcement added to and of the terms retry peti- must the the that laws. It is State its criminal If a state conviction. reverse his if federal courts tioner disposing on its overcrowded of cases in the course court, express neglects provide and statement a clear docket, insufficiently so, to do motivated is default, or primarily it. Yet it is can do about little the State there is application respect that underlies interests for State’s ground adequate in independent doctrine fed- state theof eral habeas. put great presumption a burden on also too would
A broad duty courts, federal of the It remains the state courts. federal courts or lower review, on direct this Court whether scope state court of the relevant habeas, in to determine per rule that eases the bur- judgment. se We can establish inquiry in those cases where courts the federal on den power doing no to tell so, but we have costs to are few there opinions. they We en- write their must courts how state every po- plainly, express courage in decision courts to state grounds upon tentially subject which review, the to federal impose judgments on state courts we will not rest, but their language every using particular responsibility case every presents prisoner a federal a state which claim— every order appeal, review—in of state collateral denial state reviewing might bothered with not be federal courts that in the case. and the record state law save much courts will that the federal do we believe Nor presumption by applying in all cases. The the Harris work fairly appears only, applies present presumption when it primarily judgment federal law or on rested a state court that cases is, those law, federal with was interwoven question good whether reason to has a federal court where ground adequate independent for the there there is little need for cases, In the rest decision. presumption. indication absence of a clear conclusive a federal law, federal on decision rested court a state difficult. be not will task court’s gain courts will federal little sum, is, There cases in those review presumption applying a fairly appear does decision relevant where n such with interwoven be or to law primarily to rest We lose. will courts the States much that law, presumption. Harris expand the so decline *16 B Coleman apply here. not presumption does Harris The “fairly the appears” that it he, that argue, could nor not does primarily fed- on rested Supreme decision Virginia Court’s Virginia The law. such with interwoven or was law eral granting Com- it was plainly that Supreme stated Court appeal. That petition for to dismiss motion monwealth’s meet solely failure on Coleman’s was based motion mention is no requirements. There Supreme time Court’s three-sentence Supreme Virginia Court’s law primarily on appears” rest “fairly It order. dismissal law. state Supreme dis- Court Virginia that concedes Coleman applying untimely, state appeal as his missed argues instead 9. He Petitioner Brief procedural rule. in- not rule was procedural of this application court’s that law. dependent of 5:5(a) the 80- that declares Rule Supreme Virginia Court “mandatory.” appeal filing a notice requirement for day the unwaivable reiterated has Supreme Court Virginia Lynchburg v. Bd. requirement. See School this nature of (1989);Vaughn 323 319, E. 2d 379 556, S. 550, Va. Scott, 237 (1974); 142 140, 2dE. 210 S. 329, 328, Vaughn, Va. 215 v. 889, 890 E. 2d 143 S. 445, 206 Va. Mears, Mears Coleman pronouncements, forthright (1965). Despite these Supreme did Virginia Court case in this contends Coleman Rather, requirement. automatically apply its time
741 court first considered the merits of his federal asserts, the procedural only determining applied the bar after claims and doing abridge one of Coleman’s constitu- so would not (1985), rights. Oklahoma, In Ake v. tional U. S. excusing procedural rule, Court held that a similar Oklahoma error,” trial was default cases of “fundamental not inde- pendent as to direct review because “the of federal law so bar procedural application depend ha[d] bar State made on ruling Id., an on federal law.” at 75. For the antecedent argues, Virginia Supreme reason, same Coleman Court’s requirement independent time is not of federal law. applied We have never Ake was a direct review case. its regarding independent grounds in federal rule habeas. applies good if Ake it does no here, But even Coleman be- Virginia Supreme independent relied cause the Court rule. Tharp Commonwealth, Coleman cites Va. Virginia Supreme case, S. E. 2d 277 ending practice allowing Court announced that it was *17 petitions time for of writs of error in criminal extensions of and state habeas cases: filing peti- the time a
“Henceforth we will extend for only deny a error if it is found that to the tion for writ of abridge right.” Id., extension would a constitutional at 2d, E. at 278. 3, 175 S. Virginia Supreme excep- contends that the Court’s
Coleman tion for constitutional claims demonstrates that the court will cursory petitioner’s a conduct at least a review of constitu- dismissing appeal. tional claims on the merits before Tharp We are not convinced that stands for the rule that Coleman believes it does. Coleman reads that case as estab lishing practice Virginia Supreme examining the Court of underlying deny the ing petition of all constitutional claims before merits appeal for or writ of error as time barred. A reading Virginia Supreme more natural is that the Court will only grant if the denial an extension of time would itself Virginia right. Su- is, the
abridge That a constitutional only requirement in those preme extend its time will Court right to petitioner a constitutional has the in which cases appeal heard. have Cunning example, v. in Cabaniss case, for
This was the de had Cabaniss E. 2d S. 330, 143 206Va. ham, appeal because his criminal conviction faulted direct appointed request for his to honor had failed the trial court required request to honor appeal, court was on counsel Douglas California, v. See under Constitution. 353 (1963). Supreme Virginia on state col Court, U. S. given counsel be that Cabaniss ordered review, lateral although grossly appeal, out of time. a new allowed to file Enforcing the time 914. 2d, E. 335, 143 S. Va., abridged appeal have requirements case would for appeal. right also See to counsel constitutional Cabaniss’ (1966) Peyton, E. 2d 176 771, 146 S. 206 Va. Thacker (1966) Peyton, 2d 773 (same); 147 E. 207 Va. S. Stokes (same). help He to Coleman. of no a rule would be Such Supreme Virginia contend that failure does not appeal untimely violated one of to hear his Court rights. his constitutional reading Tharp, accept however, it if we Coleman’s
Even apply Virginia Supreme Court did that the clear requirement filing Tharp for Tharp concerns rule here. appeal petition for petitions. it was not Coleman’s Here, petition appeal. A late, but his notice that was Supreme Virginia filed with that is a document Court alleged petitioner errors describes court which 5:17(c). only Sup. It need Ct. Rule Va. the decision below. judgment of a trial of the final three months filed within be *18 5:17(a)(1). appeal By the notice of contrast, Rule court. that court court that notifies with the filed trial a document parties, Supreme that Virginia as the Court, as well and the purely appeal; ministerial document. it is a an will be there appeal filed within 30 must be of the The notice Rule 5:9. judgment days court. Ibid. Coleman final of the trial of the Virginia Supreme authority indicating that has cited no requirement recognized exception the time an has Court appeal. filing a notice of for Socony Mobil Oil Co., cites also O’Brien
Coleman case, O’Brien, In E. 2d 278 707, 152 S. Va. rights making property litigant claim, a constitutional civil years appeal late. relied on several She filed her notice of proposi- Supreme Virginia cases for the three recent Court requirement for no- court would waive the time tion that the rights appeal were at stake. See where constitutional tice of supra. supra; supra; Stokes, noted, As Thacker, Cabaniss, Virginia Supreme in which the state habeas eases those were petitioner direct had been denied Court determined appoint appeal error failure to of a constitutional because counsel. expressly Virginia Supreme Court. re O’Brien, precedent “question Cabaniss, whether
served in cases involv should be followed Stokes cases Thacker and rights.” property at ing Va., denial of constitutional The court then addressed O’Bri 2d, E. at 284. 715, 152 S. against her. the merits and ruled claim on en’s constitutional if should be al was no need to decide she result, there As a “mandatory” requirement, exception time to the an lowed appeal her was dismissed 2d, E. 709, 152 S. id., untimely. as argues that the Vir- demonstrates O’Brien
Coleman ginia Supreme constitutional review the merits of Court will deciding un- whether to dismiss claims before timely. but review, did conduct such The court O’Brien explicitly a rule that there declined to announce also the court requirement filing exception time is a constitutional appeal. other than O’Brien There is no evidence a notice of Supreme Virginia conducted such a has ever Court that the explicitly announce such a declined to review, and O’Brien *19 such to announce invitation practice. decline Coleman’s We practice court. for that Supreme Virginia argues Finally, Coleman ambiguous be- at least in this case is order Court’s dismissal pa- “[u]pon all filed consideration” cause it was issued appeal petition Com- including and the pers, Coleman’s opposition, which discussed both of in brief monwealth’s is no doubt There claims. Coleman’s federal merits of pa- filed Supreme of all Virginia “consideration” Court’s simply it as cannot read ambiguity, pers but we some adds grant explicit motion of a dismissal overriding the court’s grounds grounds. in- procedural are solely Those based dependent law. of federal not ad- bar was that the also contends
Coleman petition judgment. support did equate Coleman accept the question, therefore and we on this for certiorari adequate. See Appeals’ that the bar was conclusion Court of 143. 2d, 895 F.
IV companion to Brown case Allen, the In Daniels v. nearly (1953), confronted a situation we Allen, U. S. in a North were convicted Petitioners that here. identical to day filing late their were one and then trial court Carolina Supreme right Court. appeal in the North Carolina as of appeals procedurally rejected We barred. That court petitioners also unless was barred federal habeas held that opportunity they prove without were “detained could incapacity, inter- or some appeal counsel, lack of because at 485-486. Id., ference officials.” (1963), holding. Fay overruled this S. 391 Noia, conviction, his all state court Noia failed that his sought his claim habeas review of and then held that such This Court coerced. had been confession procedural federal habeas not bar court does default deliberately bypassed petitioner has unless review opportunity intentionally forgoing for state procedures Fay presumption at 438-439. thus created a Id., review. procedurally of claims de- favor of federal habeas review *20 holding in faulted state court. The Court based orderly procedure that a State’s interest in is suffi- conclusion by ciently prisoner’s forfeiture of his state vindicated the may remedies. “Whatever residuum of state interest there manifestly under circumstances is insufficient be such affording remedy policy ... of an effective face of the federal contrary Id., for restraints Constitution.” 433-434. Fay Our cases after that have considered effect of state procedural default on federal habeas review have taken a markedly important different view of the interests served procedural Francis v. Henderson, rules. U. S. 536 (1976), prisoner challenging in a Louisiana involved composition grand jury habeas the that had indicted any provided challenge such him. Louisiana law must of trial or it would be deemed waived. be made advance timely objection, Because Francis had the Loui- not raised deciding siana courts refused to hear his claim. whether also review in this state default would bar to our in Davis v. habeas, States, we looked decision United prisoner, Davis, U. S. 233 a federal had de- pursuant faulted an identical federal claim to Federal Rule of 12(b)(2). Procedure We held that a federal court Criminal on collateral review could not hear the claim unless Davis challenge compo- for his failure to could show “cause” grand jury prejudice actual sition of the before trial and alleged Id., a result of the constitutional violations. 242-245. important Francis interests Court noted the served 12(b)(2) pretrial objection requirement of Rule unnecessary
parallel possible state rule: the avoidance of an difficulty making factual determina- retrial, trial or of a concerning grand juries long tions after the indictment has grand jury po- disbanded, and the been handed down and the finding disruption a defect tential to numerous convictions of indict jury down handed only has jury after grand in a These supra, at 540-541. many Francis, cases. ments 12(b)(2)in collateral Rule enforce in Davis us led concerns respect proper that a Francis We concluded review. pro give to the state required courts that federal the States they give rule: the federal effect rule the same cedural give effect must federal courts held, as Davis “If, § pro- legitimate in 2255 concerns important and these comity feder- surely ceedings, considerations then same they give effect no less require that alism criminal to overturn asked when interests clear recogni- require that considerations These convictions. both State legitimate interests given ‘to the be tion [that] the National . . and . Governments, National *21 may and though vindicate be to it Government, anxious [en- always interests, rights federal and protect federal unduly ways interfere not will deavor] in do so to Younger v. of the States.’ legitimate activities with finality ‘Plainly in interest 44. 37, 401 U. S. Harris, prison- state regard and to both with the same greater preclu- give . . . to reason is no .. . There ers. defendants procedural defaults to effect sive hold To defendants. state defaults similar to than view and erroneous an anomalous reflect would otherwise States, v. United relations.’ federal-state of Kaufman 541-542. S., at U. Francis, 425 228.” U. S. 394 un- in federal habeas was claim barred Francis’ We held prejudice. 542. Id., at and cause establish could less he (1977), applied the Sykes, 72 U. S. Wainwright v. Sykes broadly. did prejudice, more standard cause inculpatory state- certain object the introduction at trial law, police. Florida Under made had earlier he ments hearing on the claim from courts state failure barred this recog- We review. collateral or direct either strong objection rule served contemporaneous nized litigation. Id., at finality criminal of its in the interests adopted pre- protect the same interests, these we 88-90. To sumption against in claims defaulted federal habeas review of object Francis had at trial that court for failure prejudice jury adopted grand in context: the cause adoption Francis rule in “We believe standard. making salutary the state have the effect this situation will speak, rather than a event,’ the ‘main so to on the merits trial ‘tryout later be the determinative road’ for what will on the hearing.” Id., at 90. federal habeas Fay holding, Sykes cause limited to its facts. The In so greater prejudice evinces far standard federal habeas respect rules than does the deliberate for state incompatible Fay. bypass based These rules are standard of comity importance conceptions very and of the different litigation. finality Hill, The Forfeit- in state criminal See Rights L. Cases, 78 Colum. ure of Constitutional Criminal Sykes, open we left 1053-1059 Rev. applied bypass question standard still whether the deliberate petitioner Fay, where a has sur- a situation like that entirely right appeal his state conviction. his rendered rejected explicitly, Sykes, how- 88, n. 12. We S., going language Fay sweeping far be- Noia, “the ever, eliciting yond Id., 87-88. the case it.” the facts of Sykes applying have been unanimous cases since Our Engle prejudice Isaac, U. S. standard. cause *22 (1982), applies in in cases which the standard even held that truthfinding impaired alleged the error the constitutional object Respondents at had failed to the trial. function of placed jury them the burden of that on trial to instructions contemporaneous objection proving rule self-defense. Ohio’s respondents’ that the burden should claim on barred independent and We held that this the State. have been on ground adequate well, absent federal habeas barred prejudice. showing cause and a of corpus Recognizing “is a bulwark that the writ of habeas against fairness,” we that violate fundamental convictions significant entails Writ acknowledged Great “the that also omitted). (internal quotation marks at Id., costs.” finality in criminal the cost to is significant these of most convictions of review litigation collateral federal entails: ‘[b]oth the individual observed, once Harlan
“As Justice society insu in have interest defendant criminal ing r certainty that point the be some will at there will litigation, attention and that an end to with comes was a conviction whether ultimately not on be focused prisoner can whether but rather error from free community.’ Sand place in useful to a restored be (dissent (1963) 24-25 U. S. States, v. United ers 127. Id., ing opinion).” frus trials criminal into state “[f ]ederal intrusions
Moreover, punish power sovereign offenders States’ trate both rights.” attempts to honor constitutional good-faith and their explained, high, particularly we costs are These 128. Id., at pre through procedural default, a prisoner, a state when court. adjudication his constitutional of vents type depend of claim on the do not these costs Because procedural default that a state prisoner reaffirmed raised, we peti unless habeas federal any will claim bar prejudice. 129. Id., at actual cause tioner demonstrates prejudice Engle the cause and explained We also a state review where in those cases met be will standard mis necessary “a fundamental to correct prisoner’s is claim Murray Car also 135. See Id., carriage justice.” (“[Wjhere (1986) vi a constitutional 478, 496 477 U. S. rier, one who conviction probably resulted has olation may grant writ actually innocent, showing cause for of a in the absence even default”). prejudice standard applied cause Carrier, we his state particular claim to raise petitioner’s failure *23 Again, emphasized important appeal. interests we judicial procedural every stage of the rules at
served process when federal and the harm to the States that results ignore courts these rules: purposes procedural trial,
“A rules serve vital at State’s appeal, . and on state collateral attack. . . complement procedural rules “. . . ‘Each State’s possible, extent the resolution of channels], . . . to the stage judicial types questions various fairly they process at can be resolved most and ef- which (1984).] ficiently.’ [Reed Ross, 468 U. S. . . . finality to raise a claim on reduces the Failure proceedings, deprives appellate appellate court of an opportunity ‘undercuts] error, to review trial Engle, ability procedural rules.’ State’s to enforce its Id., 490-491. S., at 129.” at open question Sykes, whether Carrier, In we left apply Fay’s bypass under continued deliberate standard prisoner has defaulted his case, the facts of that a state where Sykes, supra, appeal. supra, 492; Carrier, entire See question. required are to answer 88, n. 12. We now By filing entire state collateral defaulted his late, Coleman appeal. and re- error, This was no doubt an inadvertent “understandingly spondent did not concedes Coleman appeal. knowingly” forgo privilege of state collateral Fay Fay, if Therefore, deliberate S., 372U. at 439. See applies, bypass de- standard still Coleman’s not bar federal habeas. fault will application terms the Harris, we described broad hinting strongly Fay prejudice standard,
the cause and superseded: had been progeny, adequate Sykes and inde- and its
“Under pendent finding procedural federal ha- default will bar peti- unless the habeas claim, beas review of the federal ‘prejudice default tioner can show ‘cause’ *24 750 Murray Carrier, 478, v. 477 U. S. thereto,'
attributable (1986), that failure to consider demonstrate 485 or ‘“ miscarriage in a ‘fundamental claim will result Engle quoting justice.”” 456 Isaac, v. Id., 495, of Murray, v. 477 also Smith S. 135 See U. (1986).” 489 at 262. Harris, S.,U. U. S. pris- explicit: in In all cases which state make it We now pursuant claims in state court his federal oner has defaulted procedural adequate independent rule, federal state to an prisoner can unless the the claims is barred habeas review of prejudice actual as a the default and demonstrate cause for alleged or demonstrate law, of federal result violation of in a will result fundamental to consider the claims that failure conception justice. Fay miscarriage based on a was importance that undervalued federal/state relations Fay ap- procedural after The several cases rules. variety plied prejudice to a of state standard the cause procedural represent now rec- a different view. We defaults finality pro- important ognize served interest significant that re- harm States rules, cedural and the respect them. Cf. the failure of federal courts sults from (1991) (“Though Fay McCleskey 467, Zant, 499 U. S. upon propositions, supra, may cast doubt these Noia, have corpus Fay decisions care our habeas since we have taken finality”). importance to reconfirm the prejudice applied standard to the the cause and Carrier appeal. particular claim on There is no rea- failure to raise a apply a failure to should not son that the same standard channeling —in all. All interests State’s appropriate in final- forum, the most resolution of claims to — opportunity ity, having correct own errors implicated prisoner defaults one claim or all of whether a are generally A should not interfere them. federal court prejudice By applying cause and standard case. either adequate procedural uniformly independent all Fay defaults, we eliminate the irrational distinction between Sykes, Engle, Francis, and the rule of cases like and Carrier. inconsistency respect We also eliminate between the fed- procedural respect eral courts show for state rules and the they long show for their own. This Court has understood interest served rules, vital even they when serve to bar federal review of constitutional (1944), In Yakus States, claims. v. United 321 U. S. *25 example, explained: the Court procedural principle
“No is more familiar to this Court may right than that a constitutional be forfeited crimi- timely the failure to nal as well as civil cases make as- right having jurisdiction a tribunal sertion before it.” at 444. Id., to determine Dept. Director, In Illinois Corrections, Browder v. 434 (1978), prisoner in a U. we held that the S. untimely federal habeas case was barred because under Fed 4(a). Appellate describing eral Rule Procedure “mandatory jurisdictional” nature of the Rule and its justification, might describing Virginia we as well have been 5:5(a): Supreme Court Rule 30-day ‘mandatory jurisdictional.’ limit is
“This time purpose The of the rule is clear: It is ‘to set a definite litigation point time should be at end, when an unless prescribed application time the has been within prospective appel- been, and if it has not to advise made; they appellant’s lees that are freed of the demands. Any the statute other construction of would defeat its purpose.’ Murphy, [Co. Matton Steamboat 319 U. S. (1943)].” (citations supra, Browder, at 264 omitted). respect given procedure.
No less should be to state rules of Francis, S., See at 541-542.
V A default. for his cause was there maintains Coleman attorney error result contends, the filing he was, late in federal default excuse magnitude to of sufficient habeas. under circumstances considered
Murray v. Carrier argued that Carrier cause. attorney constitutes error which failing certain raise attorney’s inadvertence his sufficient default for the cause appeal constituted his state claim, ex- rejected this We review. habeas allow ignorant inad- or with associated the costs plaining that failure where than no less are procedural default vertent deprives strategy: It is a deliberate claima to raise a fed- When trial errors. opportunity review theof courts State’s undercuts claim, it such hears eral ability surely when just as procedural rules to enforce con- We at 487. S.,U. deliberate. was the default represented counsel long defendant as a “So cluded: constitutionally under ineffective performance is whose *26 [466 Washington, v. in Strickland established the standard requiring to him inequity in (1984)], no discern we U. S. 668 procedural de- attorney that results error risk bear 488. Id., fault.” end. at an case is stated, this rule Applying Carrier post- attorney right to an constitutional is no
There Finley, S. 481 U. Pennsylvania v. proceedings. conviction (1989)(apply- 1 492 U. S. Giarratano, (1987);Murray cases). petitioner Consequently, capital ing rule of counsel constitutionally assistance ineffective claim cannot S. Wainwright Torna, proceedings. See in such right to counsel (where (1982) no constitutional is there assistance). Cole- deprivation of effective no can be there attorney’s led that error his was it contends man be cannot error appeal. This filing his late “bear must Coleman ineffective; therefore constitutionally attorney procedural the risk of error that results in a default.” attempts reasoning by arguing
Coleman to avoid this Carrier proposition. does not stand for such a broad He applies only contends that Carrier its terms in those situa- possible tions it is where to state a claim for ineffective assist- ance of right counsel. Where there is no constitutional argues, enough petitioner counsel, Coleman it is that a dem- attorney’s onstrate that his conduct would meet the Strick- though land independent standard, even no Sixth Amend- possible. ment claim is argument only
This language inconsistent not with the logic Carrier, opinion but with the of that as well. We ex- plained clearly that prejudice “cause” under the cause and something petitioner, test must something be external to the fairly “[W]e cannot be attributed to him: think that the procedural existence ordinarily of cause for a default must prisoner turn on whether the objective can show that some impeded factor external to the defense counsel’s efforts to comply procedural with the State’s S., rule.” U. at 488. example, showing For “a legal that the factual or basis for a reasonably claim was not available to counsel, ... or that ‘some compliance interference officials’ imprac- . . . made ticable, would constitute cause under this standard.” Ibid. (“[Clause id., See also at 492 for a default on appeal ordinarily requires showing of some external im- pediment preventing constructing raising counsel from or claim”).
Attorney ignorance or inadvertence is not “cause” because attorney petitioner’s agent is the acting, failing when or litigation, act, petitioner furtherance and the attorney must “bear the risk of Id., error.” at 488. See *27 (1962) (in Link v. R. Wabash Co., 626, 370 U. S. 634 “our system representative litigation of party . . . each is deemed lawyer-agent”); bound Department the acts of his Irwin v. (1990)(same). Affairs, Veterans 498 U. S. Attor- of ney is ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes error that because, contends, as Coleman This is cause, however. agent lawyer of ceases to be so bad that “the the error is petitioner.” 29. In a case such as for Petitioner Brief attorney alleged error is inadvertence fail where the this, contrary timely ing rule would be such a notice, file a g., agency principles e. law. Restate See, of well-settled (1958) (master (Second) subject § 242 Agency is of ment by negligent liability of servant conduct for harm caused scope employment). ex Rather, as Carrier within the plains, procedural is the result of ineffective “if default requires Amendment itself counsel, the Sixth assistance imputed responsibility default be to the State.” for the gravity it is not the words, at 488. In other S., attorney’s that it a viola matters, but constitutes error petitioner’s right the error must counsel, so that be tion of “imputed e., i. factor, State.” See seen as an external (“The (1985) Lucey, constitu also Evitts v. U. S. counsel] [guaranteeing assistance of mandate effective tional obtaining a criminal to the action of State addressed through procedure that fails to meet the stand conviction law”). process ard of due petitioner a claim as a result of the denial
Where a defaults right counsel, the State, to effective assistance responsible matter, the denial as a constitutional which is resulting any default and the harm to bear the cost of must A habeas review entails. differ- interests.that appropriate in those of costs is circumstances ent allocation responsibility peti- has no to ensure that the where State by competent represented was counsel. As between tioner petitioner petitioner, it is the who must the State and the rules. the burden of a failure to follow bear- petitioner violation, absence of a constitutional attorney all errors made bears the risk federal habeas for says explicitly. representation, in the course of the as Carrier
755 B brought Among habeas, in claims Coleman again assistance of coun- ineffective habeas, in is then sentencing, appeal. during contends Coleman trial, sel attorney in state ha- error claims, these at least as to that, Virginia because, under cause. This constitute beas must appeal, ineffec- direct trial and time of Coleman’s law at the to counsel’s conduct claims related of counsel tive assistance brought only appeal during state habeas. could be trial or 571, 698, 299 E. 2d 568, 224 Va. S. Mitchell, Walker v. See App. (1983); Commonwealth, 555, Va. Dowell v. 699-700 argues that at- Coleman E. 2d 351 S. timely failing torney in the first forum which file to error is cause. claim can be raised a federal will constitute ineffectiveness that counsel’s reiterate We independent only constitutional violation. if it is an cause right to Finley that there is no established Giarratano pre- proceedings. to For Coleman in state collateral counsel exception the rule of there must be therefore, vail, Finley where state collateral in those cases and Giarratano challenge present prisoner place can is the first review (cid:127) broadly, question answer this need not conviction. We his claims: addressed Coleman’s state court has however, for one effectiveness of Coleman’s trial court. the state habeas con- issue here. Coleman is not at that court counsel before during of his counsel ineffectiveness that it was the tends cause to ex- appeal constitutes that from that determination only whether Cole- need to decide We thus cuse his default. appeal right from the counsel on a constitutional man had judgment. that he did We conclude habeas trial court not. (1963),
Douglas established S. 353 California, right appointed indigent has a defendant criminal that an right Evitts v. in state court. as of in his first counsel right encompasses right to ef Lucey, sUpra, held that defendants all criminal of counsel fective assistance Doug- holding in our right. based We appeal as of first their Amend- Fourteenth “equality demanded las “[a]bsolute Recognizing at 358. S., U. ment.” “where held *29 nonetheless required,” we is not equality of indigent as has appeal only an one the of merits the un- an think counsel, we of benefit without right decided are poor.” rich between drawn been has line constitutional original). (emphasis in Id., 357 awhat is appeal,” if that only “one and his had has Coleman Buchanan the considered; may be proceeding collateral state hearing, evidentiary ad- 2-day after Court, County Circuit including ineffec- his error, of trial claims Coleman’s dressed requires Coleman What claims. counsel of tive assistance determination. that appeal from right counsel to ais here it. support will law case Our Pennsylvania (1974),and 600 U. 417 S. Moffitt, Ross extend (1987), to declined we 551 S. Finley, U. convic- criminal appeal aof first beyond the right to counsel fairness fundamental neither that Ross in heldWe tion. Fourteenth nor Clause Process Due required that necessitated guarantee protection equal Amendment’s appeals discretionary where in provide counsel States duty right. “The appeal already one had defendants legal arsenal duplicate the to is not cases our under the State in a defendant criminal privately retained may be that only assure to but conviction, his reverse continuing to effort present to opportunity adequate indigent defendant proc- appellate the State’s fairly context in his Finley held we Similarly, in 616. at S.,U. ess.” proceedings collateral in state right counsel no is there S., U. appellate review. direct exhaustion after supra). (citing Ross, crimi- Given here. answer dictate cases These appeal beyond first his right counsel no has defendant nal it review, would discretionary collateral or pursuing state in right to counsel had a Coleman to hold logic us defy
t> io tr- a state collateral determination of his claims of trial error. right pursue ap-
Because Coleman had no to counsel to his peal any attorney habeas, error that led to the de- fault of Coleman’s claims in cannot constitute cause to excuse the default federal habeas. As Coleman argue does not in this Court that federal review of his claims necessary prevent miscarriage justice, is a fundamental bringing he is barred from these claims federal habeas. Accordingly, judgment Appeals of the Court of
Affirmed. White, Justice concurring. judgment join opin-
I
concur
of the Court and I
in its
*30
concerning
ion, but add a few words
what occurred below.
(1989),
pro-
Reed,
Harris v.
But the state court did not the State’s re- quest early ruling for an Instead, on the motion. the court delayed ruling on the dismiss, motion to and hence briefs on both the motion and the merits were filed. later, Six months “upon granted the court consideration whereof” the State’s appeal. petitioner’s argument motion to dismiss the Hence that the court studied the merits of the federal claims to de- termine whether to waive the default, found those lacking, only granted claims then the motion dismiss; though granting it is as the court that it had said was the mo- untimely tion to dismiss the because the federal no reason court provided the untenable were default. waive the Vir occasion is that on argument predicate for The that If rule. untimeliness waives Supreme Court ginia independ adequate and not be would rule true, the were Ake Cf. review. barring or ground direct ent state filing of briefs The S. 470 U. Oklahoma, buttress than no more do would consideration and their strictly enforced. is not rule that claim waive fact Virginia does argues that Petitioner there that convinced now I not am occasion, but the rule are issues constitutional waiving rule when practice of scanty is too evidence The ones. fundamental stake, even adequate longer an nois rule permit a conclusion barring review. ground independent state by the considered were filed and were briefs merits fact conclusion. justify a different not does more, court, without Marshall whom Justice with Blackmun, Justice dissenting. join, Stevens Justice preservation of sovereignty; comity; state Federalism; methodically inven- majority certainty: The resources; concluding before interests multifarious these tories Long, S. Michigan rule plain-statement summary One order. apply (1983), does any however, opinion vain, majority’s searches proceed- right criminal to a petitioner Coleman’s mention finding his interest or defect ing constitutional from free *31 and conviction challenge his constitutional for his forum majority allude even does Nor of death. sentence 1040, id., uniformity law,” in federal “important need plain-statement adoption Court’s justified this which exaspera- displaying obvious Rather, place. first in the rule doctrine federal of substantive the breadth with tion by Fourteenth protection afforded expansive and in state fairness fundamental guarantee of Amendment’s today crusade continues Court proceedings, the criminal any petty procedural path in the to erect barriers prisoner seeking constitutional claims. review of his federal creating Byzantine I that the Because believe Court is arbitrary, unnecessary, unjustifiable impedi morass of and rights, I dissent. ments to the vindication of federal I cavalierly “[t]his The claimsthat is a case about feder- Court proceeds explanation ante, 726, without to as- alism,” purposes are sume that the of federalism advanced whenever reviewing ambiguous state- a federal court refrains from judgment. Federalism, however, has no inherent nor- majority appears not, assume, mative value: It does as the blindly any by protect the interests of States from incursion Rather, courts. federalism secures to citizens the federal sovereign the liberties that derive from the diffusion of realizing power. concepts is a “Federalism device for among decency prin- fairness which are the fundamental liberty justice lying ciples at the base of all our civil political Brennan, institutions.” Federal Habeas Cor- pus Prisoners: An Exercise in Federalism, and State Utah L. Rev. See also The Federalist No. Madison) (“Justice (C. 1961)(J. p. 324 Rossiter ed. is the end society”). government. It is the end of civil this con- lightly cannot be that the interests of feder- text, it assumed impedes a rule that federal review of alism are fostered constitutional claims. by today’s ma- Moreover, the form of federalism embraced adopted by jority little to that the Fram- bears resemblance original and ratified States. ers of Constitution sovereign majority proceeds as if the interests of the coequal. were Ours, States and the Federal Government republic, principle of a however, is a federal conceived on supreme power and constituted first and foremost of sovereign expressly not of The citizens de- citizens, States. Laws of the Constitution, clared: “This and the United States *32 760 the be . . shall . thereof in Pursuance be made
which shall 2. cl. VI, Art. Const., U. S. Land.” supreme Law Clause without constitution felt Madison James radically evidently defective.” been have “would 1961). (C. The rati- ed. by p. Rossiter 286 44, No. Federalist the of citizens the Amendment Fourteenth of fication further, with powers even expanded federal States several Fitzpat- sovereignty. See corresponding diminution parte (1976); Vir- Ex 445, 453-456 U. S. 427 Bitzer, rick v. sovereignty (1880). “the Thus, 344-348 ginia, 339, 100U. S. v. Garcia itself.” by Constitution limited is States 528, Authority, 469 U. S. Metropolitan Transit Antonio San (1985). 548 respect judgments, state-court review habeas Federal invasion no rights, is safeguard federal employed fully 346. Virginia, S., at 100U. parte sovereignty. ExCf. au constitutional Congress has within acted Since “ the States between courts ‘interpose federal thority —rights people’s federal guardians of the people, as and the v. Reed action.’” people unconstitutional from protect the Foster, (1984),quoting Mitchum 101,S. Ross, § 2254. Justice C. 28 U. S. See U. S. Allen, 344 opinion Brown separate in his Frankfurter, (1953), recognized this: 443, U. S. federal jurisdiction habeas] enables [federal
“Insofar Supreme State entertain courts district United guaranteed rights denied have Courts sit- lower of a a case is not Constitution, it States merely one as- higher It is court. judgment on a ting Constitu- Supremacy Clause respecting the pect of law.” higher State than whereby law tion vindica- courts—in exercise considered Thus, juris- rights constitutional fundamental tion of —of exemplifies full by Congress them conferred diction federalism. this Nation’s expression of *33 animating principles sight majority the lost of has the That duty by its discussion is well illustrated of federalism judgment a state-court whether court to determine a federal ground. independent Ac- adequate on an rests duty establishing majority’s this cording formulation, the to a federal risk that the to diminish court serves in the federal prisoner a claims of the federal will review court upon adequate judgment custody pursuant that rests to a reality, ground. independent however, this originally jurisdiction duty to determine a federal court rights im- were not that federal to ensure articulated was artfully quote the properly Thus, forum. denied federal originally majority, read: ante, the reconstituted urged upon it when is the “[I]t Court, incumbent ground, upon to a non-federal rests of the state court decision guarantees that constitutional order itself, ascertain non- the asserted may appropriately whether be enforced, supports adequately independently ground the Bryan, 282 U. S. judgment.” Bank v. Abie State added). (1931) Similarly, (emphasis has stated the Court neglecting disregarded or duty without be “cannot designed renouncing jurisdiction law and conferred supremacy the Constitution protect and maintain to pursuance Board thereof.” Ward made in the laws County, Indeed, 17, 253 U. S. Love Comm’rs of courts, which duty of state distrust out of a distinct arose attempting perceived federal review. to evade this Court Daniel, ex v. South Carolina River Power Co. Broad rel. See (1930) (“Even though constitutional 537, 540 281 U. S. grounds, it is the protection denied on non-federal invoked be inquire the decision of province whether of this Court If upon unsub- basis. a fair and substantial rests evaded”). may obligations not thus be stantial, constitutional managed beginnings, has the Court noble From these rights duty protect a self- into transform Defying allocation the constitutional abdication. fashioned requires authority, sovereign a federal the Court now judgment eye with an state-court court to scrutinize litigant denying claims rather than of his federal review Rights provisions enforcing Bill of of the Federal those individual autonomy. secure II majority unjustifiable acquiesced in s ele- Even if one precepts of over fundamental federalism vation of abstract liberty *34 plain- that the Court’s conclusion fairness, and apply Michigan Long not to a does rule of statement summary understandings and com- settled order defies both passionate reason.
A seriously disputed it cannot that matter, initial be As an (1989), opinion Reed, in Harris v. S. 255 U. the Court’s question expressly and resolved the this issue considered Long holding today. quite contrary and Both to the Court’s opinion review of a state-court a federal Harris involved underlying the merits of the addressed that, face, on its express reference to those claims with claims and resolved Long, S., 1037, 463 U. at both and federal law. See state case, In each it was S., at 257-258. 3; Harris, and n. 489 U. alleged ground disputed had been invoked: not state that question that state The faced with whether Court was independ- support judgment ground adequate was Accordingly, Long Harris ent of federal law. judgments “fairly appea[r] spoke that of state-court Courts primarily or to with fed- law, on federal be interwoven rest “ambig- Long, S., at or that contained law,” eral 463 U. S., law.” 489 U. Harris, to state uous . . . references 263. majority establish a fac- that these statements
The asserts application plain-statement predicate rule. of the tual for the opinion, purported to however, Neither at 735-736. Ante, plain-statement application rule to the narrow limit the fact, review. presented under in the case circumstances purposes plain for that opinions Harris make the several Long presump- adopting the was the Court habeas, federal presented are where all cases tion courts. Long understanding un- expressed its Court
The Harris court Long the state unless that equivocally: held “We independ- adequate and expressed clearly reliance its may issue a federal address ground, this Court ent state-law 262-263. S., 489 U. court.” considered “a understanding, concluded the Court Armed with aof consideration bar procedural does default last state unless the review or direct either claim on ‘“clearly ex- judgment case rendering in the ’ judgment on state rests pressly” states Mississippi, 472 U. S. quoting Caldwell Id., at bar.” Long, at 1041. (1985), quoting S., in turn 320, 327 joined by concurring opinion in a O’Connor, Justice majority’s echoed Scalia, Justice Justice Chief applied cases to all Long presumption that the indication She presented courts. federal claim where a *35 opinion did emphasize the Court’s that separately to wrote may to look federal courts rule that the well-settled not alter determining a fed- whether procedural-default rules state courts. properly in the exhausted has been eral claim impossible,” simply ac- “[I]t is 268-270. S., at U. See 489 ‘[r]equir[e] to be a state court cording concurrence, “to a . . . where default’ a explicit in its reliance presented to never has been raised on federal claim Certainly, if the 270. Id., at all.” courts at the state the state where to opinion cases been limited had Court’s was law fairly appeared federal or to rest on judgment court’s painstakingly point inmade law, the federal with interwoven unnecessary. have been would this concurrence plain-statement fed- rule for adoption of the Harris’ That apply all cases where to to intended cases was eral habeas is confirmed courts presented to the were claims federal majority dissent. the the exchange there between by the that maintained Kennedy dissenting opinion, Justice In his en- would rule plain-statement of the formulation Court’s the be otherwise would prisoners whose courage habeas peti- never-ending of stream “a file procedurally barred being hope “rewarded of relief” postconviction tions for perhaps one-line order a ambiguous rebuff, suitably awith stating that or merit’ ‘lacks prisoner’s claim finding a that added). The (emphasis Court at Id., ‘denied.’” is relief holding will . that our . . fear “the dissent’s responded that petitions prisoner improper flood submerge in a courts proce- rely aon that wishes court a state unrealistic: is easily can write pro order in one-line a rule bar dural forma ’” Id., procedural default. for reasons denied is ‘relief that plain- holding the that Court’s The Harris 12. n. itself summary could order applies ato rule statement acknowledges majority plain. the Because more been have “adds order dismissal Supreme Court’s Virginia compels ha- a federal Harris ambiguity,” ante, some of Cole- the consideration for provide forum beas claims. man’s
B holding in Har- clarity Court’s Notwithstanding of the rule-an- has read majority that Coleman asserts ris, submit, I 736. Ante, at context.” “out of therein nounced out Harris majority has wrested it however, of funda- the vindication preference aof context of the in vac- down set it rights that has constitutional mental justify attempt In its federalism. about rhetoric uum courts, responsibility abdication blind ha- recent Court’s nadir opinion marks majority’s routinely rights is discourse jurisprudence, where beas *36 The Court’s interests. of dialect functional replaced with re- routinely, evident and without now jurisprudence rights to constitutional fundamental flection, subordinates
765 McCleskey g., Zant, v. See, e. interests. utilitarian mere analysis (1991). unreflective cost-benefit Such 467 U. S. 499 generally very rights. See idea of with the is inconsistent Corpus Habeas Federalism: Dialectical Aleinikoff, & Cover (1977). Bill of The 1035, 1092 Yale L. J. Court, interests, and technical Rights a collection of all, after not, lightly casually with too “surely too to deal it is an abuse atS., 344 U. guaranteed” Allen, Brown v. rights therein. J.). (opinion Frankfurter, of procedural a state existence of that the settled It is well jurisdiction on col of a federal court does not divest default Wainwright Sykes, U. S. See review. lateral important the federal office of Rather, 82-84 way rights gives vindicating to the States’ federal in courts protect the States’ rules to their of enforcement safeguarding equal partner being in federal in an interest underlying furthers values rights. accommodation This ways. encouraging a defendant First, in two federalism appropriate rights forum makes in the his federal assert transgressions and be sooner possible to be arrested it liberty. deprivation they Sec an erroneous influence fore prisoner’s claims thorough a examination ond, permits of those effective review more imple accuracy honing writ as court, Lundy, Rose detention. unlawful See eradicate to ment (1982); S., at Allen, Brown v. 455 U. S. J.). ignores majority (opinion Frankfurter, 500-501 concluding not bear a need purposes that State these rely rule. making such a intent to clear burden denying judgment a state-court it is uncertain whether When procedural bar, in it is rests on federal claims relief from principles to ex federal court for a with federalism consistent federal claims. to review decline those ercise discretion majority first announces justifying rule, its new Long pre- application practical matter, the that, as a summary a state where case sumption entered order *37 766
prisoner presented federal constitutional claims to a state
simply
court is unwarranted, because “it is
true
that the
(cid:127)
explanation’
‘most
judgment
reasonable
is that
the state
grounds.”
rested on
quoting
Long,
Ante, at 737,
majority provides
U. S., at
support
1041. The
no
for this
flat assertion.
support
fact, the assertion finds no
in real
ity.
system,
“Under our federal
the federal
‘courts
[are] equally
guard
protect
rights
bound to
secured
Lundy,
the Constitution.’” Rose v.
S.,
at 518,
quoting
parte
Royall,
Ex
117U. S.
Accord
ingly,
prisoners
required
present
are
their federal
proceeding
claims to state tribunals before
to federal habeas,
protect
“to
the state courts’
role
the enforcement of federal
prevent disruption
judicial
law and
proceedings.”
of state
§ 2254.
Respect
S.,U.
at 518. See 28 U. S. C.
for the
responsible assumption
States’
compels
of this solemn trust
presented
the conclusion that state courts
with federal con
actually
stitutional claims
they
resolve those claims unless
in
contrary.
dicate to the
Cf. Brown v. Allen,
ests of state courts and the interests of the States independent of inexplicable. not exist do States context “[t]hrough agents, Rather, and citizens. officers, their who of those government, the character itsof structure *38 authority, a itself as government defines a State exercise Gregory ante, See also at 460. sovereign.” Ashcroft, v. (“A by its acts Virginia, at 347 State parte S., Ex judicial It can authorities. legislative, executive, or its its conception majority’s way”). novel The other act no entirely unprecedented. ibid. See is interests dichotomous (“[H]e and is clothed [who] State, for the name and the acts State”). power, More- of the act is that his the State’s with limiting principle. readily apparent For of no it admits over, to review court decline a federal habeas instance, should judge error at constitutional committed that the state by the simply will be borne of a retrial the costs because trial majority the is little asserts, “there all, as the After State? by its trial errors made constitutional do about” can State judges. 739. Ante, at correctly state majority the relevant attributed if
Even the major The they misconceived. nonetheless, are, interests, that a financial burden the ity appears concerned with most con if the initial trial course, places Of on the States. retrial Constitution, not even Federal the mandate of formed a retrial. necessitate probing would federal review most the retry price” “pay must the State Thus, to extent price as a direct result prisoner, incurred ing is a state rights, scrupulously his federal to honor failure State’s See review. federal consequence of unwelcome as a not (1989)(opinion of O’Con Teague 288, 489 U. S. Lane, by joined J., C. J., Ken Scalia Rehnquist, nor, U. S. quoting States, 394 Desist United JJ., nedy, (“ ‘[T]he (1969) dissenting)) (Harlan, of ha threat J., 262-263 necessary for trial incentive additional serves as a beas pro throughout their to conduct the land appellate courts constitu ceedings with established consistent a manner standards’”). tional elaboration without majority contends also put . . . jurisdiction] would [of presumption federal
“broad This at 739. Ante, courts.” great on too a burden Long, bur- support where only no finds assertion not mentioned, even is presumption courts on state den theof plain- misconception premised is but also of the court federal only relieve to statement rule serves state-court relevant determining of the the basis “bother” of plain-statement rule responsibly, the judgment. Viewed may in- court a state simple which provides mechanism court habeas federal discretionary deference voke the review. federal judgment from virtually insulate they may their orders draw to choose courts While sentenced particularly one prisoner, right of a wish, heard claim have his death, inci- yield the State’s simply fundamental too *39 summary ambiguous orders. issuing interest dental C plain- of the majority’s abandonment only is the Not unjustified, summary it orders purposes of rule for statement plain- adopted the Long, the Court misguided. is also prin- number had “announced we rule because statement ciples ambiguous help whether determine” us in order independent adequate and judgments rested state-court satisfying con- developed and grounds, had “not but state S., vexing U. resolving issue.” this approach sistent dealing “[t]his method Recognizing ad hoc that at 1038. independent adequate and possible that involve cases with consistency that doctrinal to the grounds is antithetical state are relations of federal-state issues required sensitive when is added), deter- Court (emphasis the at 1039 id., involved,” jurisdiction com- presumption of federal that broad simple mined could courts state which mechanism with a bined “pro- grounds best rely would clarify on state intent their develop state opportunity to judges a clearer with vide yet and interference, unimpeded jurisprudence To- 1041. integrity id., preserve law,” of federal will the approach piecemeal needlessly day’s the resurrects decision consequence, intru- invites the by Long and, as a eschewed unsatisfactory inquiry into unfamiliar sive and sought Long avoid. law Nunne- case and Ylst decisions
The Court’s ap- illogic ad hoc post, p. the 797, well reveal maker, admittedly the proach. whether case, to determine In this adequate in- judgment and ambiguous on an rests state-court “nature of the ground, dependent looks the Court “surrounding that “indi- disposition” circumstances” the procedural decision] [of default. was cate]” basis that the searching for “clues” post, This method at 802. Ylst, inherently facially ambiguous inde- meaning is order aof concurring opin- majority Tellingly, both terminate. whether uncertain it remains in this concede ions case ante, default. See relied on a the state court Supreme (“There Virginia Court’s no doubt ambiguity”); papers adds some filed of all ‘consideration’ (“[I]t though concurring) is as J., at 757-758 ante, (White, granting motion to dismiss it was said that the court had untimely were un- the federal because de- provided reason to court no waive tenable effectively equitably fault”). plain-statement rule uncertainty. unacceptable condone I cannot eliminates this result is to foreclose when the a rule of such abandonment *40 conjecture claims based on of federal review federal habeas unexplained “meaning” order. an of as to the we are des- that in Ylst decision demonstrates The Court’s develop prin- struggled period to where we the tined to relive ambiguous interpretation state-court guide of ciples the to judgment render a court to last state the Ylst, orders. Supreme the was California claims Nunnemaker’s on corpus petition for habeas had filed Nunnemaker Court. Accordingly, jurisdiction. original invoking its court, that another judgment of sitting the review to not was the court Nunne matter, original an entertain, as to but court, court’s The conviction. challenge his to collateral maker’s explanation or ci without denying rendered was relief order by today just employed methodology Rejecting the tation. the to not look does Court Ylst majority, the the Coleman “mean the determine to original action pleadings in the filed adopts a Court the Rather, unexplained order. ing” of the one has been “[w]here there that presumption per se broad un later claim, rejecting a federal judgment reasoned state rejecting the judgment or upholding that explained orders post, 803. at Ylst, ground.” upon same the rest same claim distinguish between purport to not does presumption This rea theof review entered are that judgments unexplained independent thereof. are opinion those soned pre- the employment of the demonstrates Court Ylst highest the judgment of the simply ignoring by sumption intermediate looking by back California, court conclude years earlier judgment rendered court procedurally de- been have Nunnemaker’s that an determines concluding, the Court In so faulted. which, Supreme Court, California intervening order Nunne- decisions, denied state-court to two with citations jurisdic- original invoking the court’s petition earlier maker’s post, question,” respect with “informative not tion, merits considered has whéther recog- was procedural default claims since Nunnemaker’s determinations two dismisses Court Thus, nized. ear- an review not rendered Court, Supreme California ju- original its exercise anas judgment but state-court lier “infor- determinations those it finds because risdiction, ” labeling itself may comfort Court While mative. cannot be it post, through,” see “look[ing] exercise disrespect for represents practice disputed mecha- structure best of how determination State’s relief. postconviction seeking nisms *41 adopted presumption Ylst fur- Court Moreover, the complicates understand and courts to the efforts of state ther jurisprudence. habeas this Court’s federal accommodate only recognize Long, that it must a state court need Under clearly express procedural rely default on a state its intent to in most cases. preclude review habeas order to to intend not today, does court that however, a state After deny a meritless rely procedural wishes to default but on a its un- summary petition must now remember in a order court. ignored explained federal habeas will be order history procedural must review state court Thus, the judg- petitioner’s which state-court claim and determine recognize. likely It then habeas court is ment a federal judgment expresses sub- whether that must determine summary convey order, in its the court wishes stance that judgment previous accordingly. reasoned If the and react subsequent procedural and the default, rests on a clearly forgive and ex- it now must default, wishes judgment on a state pressly does rest that its indicate abandoning a clear procedural I no benefit see default. chaos. rule to create
Ill respect plain-statement Having rule with abandoned majority ar- summary must consider Coleman’s order, untimely filing was gument of his notice that the magnitude attorney as to consti- error of sufficient result logic sleight In a default. for his tute cause consequences, tragic the ma- if not for its be ironic that would pursuing prisoner state collateral jority that a state concludes attorney’s grave errors —even of his the risk relief must bear prisoner exe- will be is that the errors if result of those having presented claims to a federal his federal cuted without appro- represents the of risk attribution court—because un- at 754. Whether priate Ante, of costs.” “allocation pro- postconviction attorney professional in a state conduct prisoner’s a state ceeding review of bar federal should *42 question costs to of death is not sentence conviction efficiently. another circum- rather, is, It most be allocated federal whether must determine stance this Court where my the ob- rights yield view, interests. should to state ligation con- fundamental to correct of a federal habeas capital not particularly cases, should in stitutional violations, implement develop and to accede to the “discretion State’s postconviction seeking programs prisoners to secure to aid Finley, 559 Pennsylvania 481 U. S. review.” in decision that this Court’s majority contends The first (1986), expressly resolves Murray U. S. Carrier, procedural as the so, be that cannot course, this issue. Of Murray not col review, direct occurred on in default at issue authority is resolve has no and this Court attack, lateral notwithstanding major the Moreover, sues not it. before Murray contrary, language of ity’s protestations the of the issue suggests strongly resolution that the Court’s procedural regardless the of when same have been the would Murray explained: “A Court The default occurred. ap purposes on trial, at procedural vital serve rules State’s (em S., at 490 peal, attack.” collateral state on added). argument with re Rejecting that, phasis Carrier’s procedural on defaults spect cause, for to the standard during differently those that occur from be should treated should for cause “the standard stated that trial, the Court timing procedural or on vary depending of a default assessment strength and difficult anof uncertain the state magnitude benefits attributable relative stage ju each procedural successive that attach rules added). (emphasis process.” Id., dicial major- language, by which The foreshadowed rule principled faithfully view ity today to a adheres most evades, jurisdiction. above, As noted habeas of federal of the role jurispru- forgo of their habeas exercise federal courts respect procedurally out barred claims are dence over Recognition rules. served those interests for the state petitioners discourages from at- procedural forfeitures proceedings accommodates tempting to avoid finality. can deter however, rule, No interest State’s permit caused default incompetence. gross To enough egregious constitute ineffective attorney error aof preclude habeas review counsel assistance of way the State’s serves in no prisoner’s proceed- integrity rules preserving of its interest provide standing finality, cannot alone, ings. interest compromise court to a federal reason a sufficient *43 rights. protection constitutional of its allegations in- of majority’s that Coleman’s conclusion a not excuse true, if would counsel, of assistance effective postconviction in the procedural occurred that default disturbing the time particularly because, at proceeding is precluded from appeal, defendants law of Coleman’s majority appeal. ac- As the raising direct claims on certain time of Cole- at the knowledges, as it existed law under state appeal, raise his ineffective- Coleman could man’s trial respect conduct to counsel’s with claim assistance-of-counsel only 755. Ante, at habeas. during in state trial and Amendment that the Fourteenth made has clear This Court indigent an ade- defendant obligates the “‘to assure a State fairly context present the his claims quate opportunity to Finley, Pennsylvania process,’” appellate the State’s of 600, quoting 417 U. S. Moffitt, Ross v. S., 481 U. at system appellate be (1974), “require[s] the state that the While id,., at 612. distinctions,’” unreasoned ‘free from proc- appellate to structure may have wide latitude State the consistent with cannot, it effective, most it ess as deems way as to it such Amendment, structure Fourteenth deny indigent Accordingly, meaningful if access. defendants appellate process of direct the remove from a State desires category Amend- claims, the Fourteenth of or a claim review effec- has the defendant that to ensure the State ment binds entirety procedure of of counsel tive assistance Similarly, may funda- be raised. claims removed where having cer- removed State, that dictates mental fairness the burden process review, bear direct tain from the proceeding to which in the of ineffective counsel assistance claim removed. has been Ultimately, ineffective as- the Court’s determination procedural cause of de- sistance of counsel cannot constitute patently proceeding unfair. postconviction is fault a state apply inequitable concluding cause it was not that occur on prejudice defaults and appeal, standard “additional Murray in the comfort Court took justice miscarriages cases”: in criminal safeguard against S., right of counsel. assistance effective safeguard presence of such “The reasoned: 496. The Court determining judgment in may properly inform Court’s govern of the habeas the exercise ‘[w]hat should standards procedurally respect to de- equitable discretion’ with court’s quoting S., Ross, Reed v. U. 9. Ibid,., faulted claims.” the writ concern of “[Fundamental central fairness is the Washington, 466 U. S. corpus.” Strickland inequity quintessence that the Court It continuing safeguard to embrace today while abandons *44 prejudice standard. the cause I dissent.