Fiore v. White
Decision Date | 09 January 2001 |
Docket Number | 98942 |
Citation | 531 U.S. 225,148 L.Ed.2d 629,121 S.Ct. 712 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Parties | WILLIAM FIORE, PETITIONER v. GREGORY WHITE, WARDEN, et al.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES |
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Petitioner, William Fiore, was convicted of violating a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the operation of a hazardous waste facility without a permit. After Fiore's conviction became final, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted the statute for the first time, and made clear that Fiore's conduct was not within its scope. However, the Pennsylvania courts refused to grant Fiore collateral relief. We granted certiorari in part to decide when, or whether, the Federal Due Process Clause requires a State to apply a new interpretation of a state criminal statute retroactively to cases on collateral review.
In order to determine if that question was in fact presented, we asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court whether its decision interpreting the statute not to apply to conduct like Fiore's was a new interpretation, or whether it was, instead, a correct statement of the law when Fiore's conviction became final. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, responding to our certified question, has now made clear that retroactivity is not at issue. At the same time, that court's interpretation of its statute makes clear that Fiore did not violate the statute. We consequently find that his conviction is not consistent with the demands of the Federal Due Process Clause. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316 (1979).
This case, previously described in greater detail in our opinion certifying the state-law question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 528 U.S. 23 (1999), arises out of William Fiore's conviction under a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits "operat[ing] a hazardous waste" facility without a "permit." Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 35, §6018.401(a) (Purdon 1993); see Commonwealth v. Fiore, CC No. 8508740 (Ct. Common Pleas, Allegheny Cty., Pa., Jan. 19, 1988), App. 6. The Commonwealth conceded that Fiore in fact had a permit, but argued that Fiore had deviated so dramatically from the permit's terms that he nonetheless had violated the statute. And the Commonwealth's lower courts agreed. See id., at App. 43_44; Commonwealth v. Fiore, No. 00485 PGH 1988 (May 12, 1989), App. 99_100 (affirming Fiore's conviction on the trial court's reasoning).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review Fiore's case, Commonwealth v. Fiore, 525 Pa. 577, 575 A. 2d 109 (1990), and his conviction became final. Thereafter, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review the conviction of Fiore's co-defendant, David Scarpone, convicted of the same crime at the same time. The Supreme Court reversed Scarpone's conviction on the ground that the statute meant what it said: The statute made it unlawful to operate a facility without a permit; one who deviated from his permit's terms was not a person without a permit; hence, a person who deviated from his permit's terms did not violate the statute. Commonwealth v. Scarpone, 535 Pa. 273, 279, 634 A. 2d 1109, 1112 (1993) ( ).
Fiore, unsuccessful in his subsequent state-court attempts to have his own conviction set aside, see Commonwealth v. Fiore, 445 Pa. Super. 401, 665 A. 2d 1185 (1995), appeal denied, Commonwealth v. Fiore, 544 Pa. 623, 675 A. 2d 1243 (1996), brought a federal habeas corpus action. The District Court granted the writ, but the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. 149 F.3d 221 (1998). The Court of Appeals believed that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Scarpone's case, had announced a new rule of law, inapplicable to Fiore's already final conviction. Id., at 227. And, the Court of Appeals said, "state courts are under no [federal] constitutional obligation to apply their decisions retroactively." Id., at 222. We granted certiorari to determine whether Fiore's conviction was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause.
Because we were uncertain whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Scarpone's case represented a change in the law of Pennsylvania, we certified the following question to that court:
"Does the interpretation of Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 35, §6018.401(a) (Purdon 1993), set forth in Commonwealth v. Scarpone, 535 Pa. 273, 279, 634 A. 2d 1109, 1112 (1993), state the correct interpretation of the law of Pennsylvania at the date Fiore's conviction became final?" 528 U.S., at 29.
We received the following reply:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brumfield v. Stinson
...a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 229, 121 S.Ct. 712, 148 L.Ed.2d 629 (2001)(holding that "the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a State to convict a person of a crime without proving the elements ......
-
In re Corpus
...of due process requires California to apply Chun retroactively to convictions that are final on appeal. (See Fiore v. White (2001) 531 U.S. 225, 228, 121 S.Ct. 712, 148 L.Ed.2d 629.) Because we conclude that Chun should be applied retroactively to convictions that are final on appeal based ......
-
White v. Arnold
...instructed that nothing in the attorneys' opening and closing statement was to be considered evidence. (2 CT 275.) 5. Cf. Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 228-29 (2001) (due process violated where basic element of crime not proven because statute did not prohibit defendant's conduct). 6. Prior......
-
Garvey v. Phelps, Civil Action No. 09–788–SLR.
...Petitioner's reliance on Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974), and Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 229, 121 S.Ct. 712, 148 L.Ed.2d 629 (2001), does not alter the court's conclusion because the decisions are inapposite; both Davis and Fiore involved a cour......
-
Review Proceedings
...R V. ROCEEDINGS P 51 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. (2022) 1099 error, 2840 and insufficient evidence. 2841 2840. See Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 228-29 (2001) (per curiam) (habeas relief possible because due process violated by defendant’s conviction without proving each element of cri......
-
Double helix, double bind: factual innocence and postconviction DNA testing.
...must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."). (181) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316-18 (1979) (footnotes omitted). (182) 531 U.S. 225, 228-29 (183) Id.; see also Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 325 (1995) (noting that "concern about the injustice that results from the conviction of an......
-
CERTIFICATION COMES OF AGE: REFLECTIONS ON THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF COOPERATIVE JUDICIAL FEDERALISM.
...judgment is not yet 'final' for purposes of [section] 2244(d)(1)(A)."). (140) Fiore v. White, 528 U.S. 23 (1999). (141) Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 227 (2001) (per (142) Id. (143) Id. (emphasis omitted). (144) Id. at 228 (quoting Fiore v. White, 757 A.2d 842, 849 (Pa. 2000)). (145) Fiore ......