Wainwright v. Booker

Citation87 L.Ed.2d 706,473 U.S. 935,106 S.CT. 3343
Decision Date24 September 1985
Docket NumberA-220
PartiesLouie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections v. Stephen Todd BOOKER
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

473 U.S. 935
106 S.CT. 3343
87 L.Ed.2d 706
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

v.

Stephen Todd BOOKER. A-220. Sept. 24, 1985. For majority opinion see 106 S.Ct. 30. djQ Justice POWELL, concurring.* My vote was to grant Florida's application to vacate the stay of execution in this case. I write as it seems important to address two points raised by Justice MARSHALL's dissent. I The dissent contends that our action in this case conflicts with our customary deference to the decisions of courts of appeals on stay applications. Such deference is not absolute. We have noted previously that "stays of execution are not automatic pending the filing and consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari from this Court to the court of appeals that has denied a writ of habeas corpus." Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3396, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983). To the contrary, stays in cases of this sort should be granted only when (i) it is reasonably probable that four Members of the Court would vote to grant certiorari or to note probable jurisdiction, and also (ii) there is a significant possibility that this Court will reverse the decision below. Ibid. 1 In this case, after examining the State's application to vacate, the respondent's response, the application for a stay filed with the Court of Appeals, and the opinions of the Court of Appeals and the District Court, I concluded that there was no basis for finding that either prong of the Barefoot v. Estelle test was satisfied. The Court of Appeals offered no reasons for its decision to grant the stay application, and no plausible reason appeared from the record. ---------- * This opinion was filed September 24, 1985. 1. The third requirement—that irreparable harm will result if a stay is not granted—is necessarily present in capital cases.

[936]

Deference is a two-way street. Although my vote did not depend on speculation as to the Court of Appeals' reason for granting respondent's stay application, it would not be surprising if that court was confused by the seeming absence of deference in our decisions in Pinkerton v. McCotter, 473 U.S. 925, 106 S.Ct. and Darden v. Wainwright, 473 U.S. 928, 106 S.Ct. ----, --L.Ed.2d ----. In both of those cases, this Court reversed denials of stays of execution, on the ground that four Justices either had voted to grant certiorari or had suggested that such a vote was likely. I joined those decisions out of a concern that the Court ordinarily should not permit an
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT