Netherland v. Tuggle
| Decision Date | 14 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | 209 |
| Parties | J.D. NETHERLAND, Warden v. Lem Davis TUGGLE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Applicant asks that we vacate a stay of execution granted Tuggle by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Because we agree with applicant that the stay was improvidently entered, we grant his application to vacate, provided that the stay shall remain in effect until September 20, 1995, to allow Tuggle's counsel opportunity to seek a further stay in this Court.
On June 29, 1995, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating the District Court's grant of habeas relief, finding all of Tuggle's constitutional claims to be without merit. Tuggle v. Thompson, 57 F.3d 1356. The court stayed the issuance of its mandate on August 2, however, and granted Tuggle a 30-day stay of execution pending t he filing of a timely petition for certiorari in this Court; then on August 25 it extended the stay of execution for the full 90 days allowed to file a certiorari petition in this Court.
Both actions of the court were taken by summary order without opinion or discussion. Nothing indicates that the Court of Appeals even attempted to undertake the three-part inquiry required by our decision in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895-896, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3395-3396, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983). See also Maggio v. Williams, 464 U.S. 46, 48, 104 S.Ct. 311, 312, 78 L.Ed.2d 43 (1983) (per curiam ); Autry v. Estelle, 464 U.S. 1, 2-3, 104 S.Ct. 20, 21-22, 78 L.Ed.2d 1 (1983) (per curiam ). There is no hint that the court found that "four Members of th[is] Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari" or that "a significant possibility of reversal" existed. Barefoot, supra, at 895, 103 S.Ct., at 3395. We think the inescapable conclusion is that the Court of Appeals mistakenly believed that a capital defendant as a matter of right was entitled to a stay of execution until he has filed a petition for certiorari in due course. But this view was rejected in Autry, supra, at 2, 104 S.Ct., at 21, and Maggio, supra, at 48, 104 S.Ct., at 312.
Accordingly, the application to vacate the stay of execution is granted.
Because there is no support in the record for the conclusion that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion when it granted a stay of execution to enable respondent Tuggle to file a petition for certiorari, I respectfully dissent. The fact that the respondent has substantial grounds for challenging the constitutionality of his death sentence is demonstrated both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Horn
...to state proceedings, it would have issued a temporary stay to that effect. For example, the Petitioner cites Netherland v. Tuggle, 515 U.S. 951, 116 S.Ct. 4, 132 L.Ed.2d 879, cert. granted, 515 U.S. 1188, 116 S.Ct. 38, 132 L.Ed.2d 918 (1995), in which the United States Supreme Court vacate......
-
Stutson v. U.S.
...concession of error that goes not to the judgment but merely to an aspect of the reasoning below or of respondent's argument below. 4Netherland v. Tuggle, 515 U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 4, 132 L.Ed.2d 879 (1995), upon which the Court relies, see No. 94-9323, at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 608, is not to t......
-
Burris v. Parke, 95-3725
...of execution. A stay is proper only if the petitioner has a significant chance of prevailing on the merits. Netherland v. Tuggle, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 4, 132 L.Ed.2d 879 (1995). For substantially the reasons given by the district judge, we conclude that Burris has not demonstrated such ......
-
Stutson v. U.S.
...their basis for decision is entirely unambiguous. See Lawrence, ante, at ---, 116 S.Ct., at 608 (discussing Netherland v. Tuggle, 515 U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 4, 132 L.Ed.2d 879 (1995)). If, on the other hand, the Court of Appeals did not fully consider the applicability of Pioneer, or if it co......
-
Protecting first federal habeas corpus petitions: closing the opening left by Gomez.
...116 S. Ct. 1312 (1996); Lonchar v. Thomas, 116 S. Ct. 1293 (1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 116 S. Ct. 457 (1995); Netherland v. Tuggle, 116 S. Ct. 4 (1995); Foster v. Gilliam, 116 S. Ct. 1 (1995); Garlotte v. Fordice, 115 S. Ct. 1948 (1995); Purkett v. Elem, 115 S. Ct. 1769 (1995); Kyles v. Wh......