White v. Florida
| Decision Date | 13 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. A-130,A-130 |
| Parties | William Melvin WHITE v. FLORIDA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
William White has requested me as Circuit Justice to stay the judgment and mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida pending filing and disposition of his petition for a writ of certiorari. A state trial court convicted White of first degree murder and sentenced him to death. The Florida Supreme Court upheld both the conviction and sentence. It denied rehearing on July 8, 1982, and stayed the mandate until August 9, 1982, requiring White to seek any further stay from this Court.
In his application for a stay, filed by counsel, White states that he intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari because the judgment affirming his conviction and sentence is "in violation of (the) rights secured by the Constitution of the United States." His application does not suggest any more specific basis for seeking the writ. The only reason ad- vanced by White for staying the mandate is that, absent a stay, administrative proceedings culminating in the execution of his sentence will be instituted on August 9. The state has responded, however, that the threat of execution is not imminent. No execution date has been set, and the state does not contemplate that one will be set in the near future.
The standards for granting a stay of mandate pending disposition of a petition for certiorari are well established:
"(T)here must be a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction; there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court's decision; and there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed." Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U.S. 1301, 1305, 95 S.Ct. 1, 3, 42 L.Ed.2d 17 (1974) (Powell, J., in chambers).
See Karcher v. Daggett, —- U.S. ——, 102 S.Ct. 1298, 71 L.Ed.2d 635 (1982) (Brennan, J., in chambers); Whalen v. Roe, 423 U.S. 1313, 1316-17, 96 S.Ct. 164, 165-66, 46 L.Ed.2d 18 (1975) (Marshall, J., in chambers). Although White's application establishes that he may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future, there is no indication that the harm is imminent. Additionally, White's application does not specify either the issues for which certiorari will be sought or the reasons why review is appropriate. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ritter v. Smith
...that four members of this Court would find that this case merits review.' " Id. (quoting White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301, 103 S.Ct. 1, 73 L.Ed.2d 1385 (1982) (Powell, J. in chambers)). Approximately seven hours before his scheduled execution, Evans filed a second habeas petition in the Unit......
-
Barefoot v. Estelle
...must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed.' " White v. Florida, 457 U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 1, 73 L.Ed.2d 1385 (1982) (POWELL, J., in chambers) (quoting Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U.S. 1301, 1305, 95 S.Ct. 1, 4, 42 L.E......
-
Maggio v. Williams
...meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction.' " White v. Florida, 458 U.S. ---, ---, 103 S.Ct. 1, ---, 73 L.Ed.2d 1385 (1982) (POWELL, J., in chambers) (quoting Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U.S. 1301, 1305, 95 S.Ct. 1, 3, 42 L.Ed.......
-
Baldwin v. Maggio
...Barefoot v. Estelle, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3395, 77 L.Ed.2d ---- (1983) (quoting White v. Florida, 457 U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1, 73 L.Ed.2d 1385 (1982) (Powell, Circuit Justice)). Barefoot emphasizes that, when a petitioner under imminent threat of execution has made a substant......