`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
`Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J.
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
` STEPHEN MORELAND REDD v.
`
`
`
`KEVIN CHAPPELL, WARDEN
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
`
`
`STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
` No. 14–6264. Decided December 1, 2014
`
`The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
`
` Statement of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE
`
`
`
`BREYER joins, respecting the denial of certiorari.
`Seventeen years after petitioner was first sentenced to
`
`death, and more than four years after his conviction and
`sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, petitioner has not
`
`received counsel to represent him in his state habeas
`corpus proceedings—counsel to which he is entitled as a
`matter of state law. See Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §68662
`(West 2009). He has suffered this delay notwithstanding
`the California Supreme Court’s observation that “[i]deally,
`
`the appointment of habeas corpus counsel should occur
`shortly after an indigent defendant’s judgment of death,”
`In re Morgan, 50 Cal. 4th 932, 937, 237 P. 3d 993, 996
`(2010), and our own general exhortation that “[f]inality is
`essential to both the retributive and the deterrent func-
`tions of criminal law,” Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U. S.
`
`
`538, 555 (1998). At the same time, the California Su-
`preme Court refuses to consider capital inmates’ pro se
`submissions relating to matters for which they have a
`continuing right to representation. See In re Barnett, 31
`
`Cal. 4th 466, 476–477, 73 P. 3d 1106, 1113–1114 (2003).
`Petitioner therefore remains in limbo: To raise any claims
`challenging his conviction and sentence in state habeas
`proceedings, he must either waive his right to counsel or
`continue to wait for counsel to be finally appointed.
`
`Although these circumstances are undoubtedly trou-
`bling, I vote to deny the petition for certiorari because it is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` REDD v. CHAPPELL
`
`Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J.
`
`
` not clear that petitioner has been denied all access to the
`
`courts.
`In fact, a number of alternative avenues may
`remain open to him. He may, for example, seek appoint-
`ment of counsel for his federal habeas proceedings. See 18
`U. S. C. §3599(a)(2). And he may argue that he should not
`
`be required to exhaust any claims that he might otherwise
`bring in state habeas proceedings, as “circumstances exist
`that render [the state corrective] process ineffective to
`protect” his rights. 28 U. S. C. §2254(b)(1)(B)(ii). More-
`over, petitioner might seek to bring a 42 U. S. C. §1983
`suit contending that the State’s failure to provide him
`with the counsel to which he is entitled violates the Due
`Process Clause. Our denial of certiorari reflects in no way
`on the merits of these possible arguments. Finally, I also
`note that the State represents that state habeas counsel
`will be appointed for petitioner “[i]n due course”—by
`which I hope it means, soon. See Brief in Opposition 6.
`
`
`
`
`2
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
