Dye v. Hofbauer
| Decision Date | 11 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-8384.,04-8384. |
| Citation | 163 L. Ed. 2d 1,546 U.S. 1,126 S. Ct. 5 |
| Parties | DYE <I>v.</I> HOFBAUER, WARDEN. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Held: Dye's federal claim was properly raised in state court, and his federal habeas petition presented that claim with sufficient clarity. Contrary to the Sixth Circuit's holding, the District Court record contains the brief Dye filed in state court, which sets out the federal claim, outlining specific prosecutorial misconduct allegations and citing the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and several relevant federal cases. That brief was clear that the prosecutorial misconduct claim was based, at least in part, on a federal right. The Sixth Circuit's alternative holding is also incorrect. The federal habeas petition made clear and repeated references to an appended supporting brief, which presented Dye's federal prosecutorial misconduct claim with more than sufficient particularity.
Certiorari granted; 111 Fed. Appx. 363, reversed and remanded.
Tried by a jury for the third time, petitioner Paul Allen Dye was convicted in the Recorders Court in Detroit, Michigan, on two counts of murder and one count of possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. His defense in each of his three trials was that the crimes were committed by one of the prosecution's key witnesses, who was present at the scene of the crimes.
The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the convictions on direct review, People v. Dye, No. 136707 (Nov. 28, 1995) (per curiam), App. to Pet. for Cert. 109, and further review was denied by the Supreme Court of Michigan, People v. Dye, 453 Mich. 852, 551 N. W. 2d 189 (1996). Petitioner sought relief in habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging various federal constitutional claims. Denied relief, petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Over the next five years, the Court of Appeals issued various orders and two opinions in the case. 45 Fed. Appx. 428 (CA6 2002) (Dye I); 111 Fed. Appx. 363 (CA6 2004) (Dye II).
In Dye I, a majority of a divided three-judge panel ruled the state prosecutor had engaged in flagrant misconduct during the jury trial. On this ground it reversed the District Court's order denying habeas relief. The panel did not address petitioner's other claims. 45 Fed. Appx., at 428, n. 1.
Respondent moved for panel or en banc rehearing. In the time between this motion and its disposition one of the judges in the majority retired, and the record was returned to the District Court.
In Dye II, a reconstituted panel granted the petition for rehearing and ruled in favor of respondent. In an opinion authored by the original panel's dissenting judge, the Court of Appeals held that, although Dye had raised a prosecutorial misconduct claim in state court, the record did not show that he presented it there as a violation of a federal right. "Because the brief filed by the petitioner in his direct appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals is not in the record, we have no way of determining exactly how he framed the issue in state court." 111 Fed. Appx., at 364. As further support for its conclusion, the panel noted the Michigan Court of Appeals' decision analyzed the relevant claim only in terms of state law. The panel concluded, moreover, it would decline to address the claim even if Dye had properly raised it in state court because the federal habeas corpus petition's allegations were too vague and general to be considered fairly presented. Ibid. Stating that its previous opinion, Dye I, had disposed of any remaining claims, the Dye II panel vacated the prior judgment and affirmed the District Court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
Dye seeks review here. There are two errors in Dye II meriting reversal of the judgment.
First, the Court of Appeals was incorrect in Dye II to conclude that, when seeking review in the state appellate court, petitioner failed to raise the federal claim based on prosecutorial misconduct. The Court of Appeals examined the opinion of the state appellate court and noted that it made no mention of a federal claim. That, however, is not dispositive. Failure of a state appellate court to mention a federal claim does not mean the claim was not presented to it. "It is too obvious to merit extended discussion that whether the exhaustion requirement . . . has been satisfied cannot turn upon whether a state appellate court chooses to ignore in its opinion a federal constitutional claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v. Stewart
...rights guaranteed under the federal constitution, "'this does not mean the claim was not presented to it[.]'" Id. (quoting Dye v. Hofbauer, 546 U.S. 1, 3 (2005)). The Eleventh Circuit, in Lucas, indicated courts may look to a petitioner's brief "to determine whether he mentioned the federal......
-
Gatlin v. Culpepper
...the "failure of a state court to mention a federal claim does not mean the claim was not presented to it." Dye v. Hofbauer, 546 U.S. 1, 3, 126 S. Ct. 5, 6-7, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2005). And, simply labeling the claim "federal" may be sufficient to fairly present the claim. Baldwin, 541 U.S. at ......
-
Jordan v. Epps
......He also asserts that the court was required to determine whether the remarks would mislead the jury or prejudice Jordan, as well as whether they were made deliberately, citing United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d 1380, 1385 (6th Cir.1994); Washington v. Hofbauer, 228 F.3d 689, 708 (6th Cir.2000). Jordan concludes: Had the court conducted these analyses, it would have reached the readily apparent conclusion that the prosecutor's improper commentary was deliberate, extensive, and misled and prejudiced the jury. Having failed to make the required analysis, ......
-
Thomas v. Carroll
...of Petitioner's federal constitutional claim for the purposes of federal habeas review under the AEDPA. See Dye v. Hofbauer, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 5, 7, 163 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (finding that petitioner presented a federal claim to the state courts because his state appellate brief cited......
-
Vertical Restraints
...cross licensing agreement settling patent interference litigation constituted unlawful horizontal arrangement). 6. Texaco v. Dagher, 546 U.S. 1, 5 (2006). 7. See , e.g. , Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 49-50 (1977); Paladin Assocs. v. Mont. Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 115......
-
Table of Cases
...Case COMP/M.6314, Comm’n Decision (Sept. 4, 2012), 228 Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (2006), 49, 52, 101 Texaco v. Dagher, 546 U.S. 1 (2006), 143 Ticketmaster and Live Nation, [2010] CC 1150/4/8/10, 260 Ticketmaster Entm’t; United States v., 2010 WL 5699134 (D.D.C. 2010), 38 Timken Roll......
-
Review Proceedings
...not satisfied because court must turn to state court to consider as-applied rather than facial challenge). 2864. See Dye v. Hofbauer, 546 U.S. 1, 3 (2005) (per curiam) (“Failure of a state appellate court to mention a federal claim does not mean the claim was not presented to it.”). In Dye......
-
Joint Ventures and Other Competitor Collaborations
...by the NCAA was not reasonably necessary to the JV because it did not advance legitimate objectives of the JV). 41. Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 546 U.S. 1, 6-8 (2006) (“[W]here the business practice being challenged involves the core activity of the joint venture itself-namely, the pricing of th......