throbber
1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
`
`Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J.
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`RAPHAEL DEON HOLIDAY v. WILLIAM STEPHENS,
`
`DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
`
`JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
`
`ON APPLICATION FOR STAY AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF
`
`CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
`
`
`THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
`
`No. 15–6956 (15A520) (Decided November 18, 2015)
`
`
`The application for stay of execution of sentence of death
`presented to JUSTICE SCALIA and by him referred to the
`
`Court is denied. The petition for writ of certiorari is de-
`nied.
` Statement of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, respecting the appli-
`cation for stay of execution and denial of certiorari.
`
`A federal statute entitles defendants sentenced to death
`to court-appointed counsel during “all available post-
`conviction process.” 18 U. S. C. §3599(e). This statute
`requires counsel to “represent the defendant in . . . pro-
`ceedings for executive or other clemency as may be availa-
`ble to the defendant.” Ibid.; see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U. S.
`
`180, 185–186 (2009). Pursuant to §3599, Raphael Holiday
`asked his court-appointed counsel—Seth Kretzer and
`James Volberding—to petition the State of Texas for
`clemency. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a. His attorneys de-
`clined, however, because of their belief that there was “no
`chance at all that a clemency petition would be granted.”
`Id., at 11a (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Holiday asked a Federal District Court to appoint a new
`attorney who would file his petition for clemency. The
`court denied his request. The court recognized that §3599
`compelled it to appoint new counsel if “the interests of
`
`justice” require. Ibid. (quoting Martel v. Clair, 565 U. S.
`___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 7); (internal quotation marks
`omitted). But given the “representations” of Holiday’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
` HOLIDAY v. STEPHENS
`
`Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J.
`
`
`attorneys, the court found new counsel unwarranted.
`App. to Pet. for Cert. 11a.
`This denial was an abuse of discretion. When Congress
`
`authorized federally funded counsel to represent clients in
`clemency proceedings, it plainly “did not want condemned
`men and women to be abandoned by their counsel at the
`last moment and left to navigate the sometimes labyrin-
`thine clemency process from their jail cells.” Harbison,
`556 U. S., at 194 (quoting Hain v. Mullin, 436 F. 3d 1168,
`
`1175 (CA10 2006) (en banc); internal quotation marks
`omitted). Yet this is exactly what happened here. Al-
`
`though the “‘interests of justice’ standard contemplates a
`peculiarly context-specific inquiry,” Martel, 565 U. S., at
`___ (slip op., at 13), it surely precludes a court from reject-
`ing a substitution motion solely because it agrees with the
`
`appointed attorneys’ premonitions about clemency.
`
`
`Executive clemency is fundamentally unpredictable.
`
`Clemency officials typically have “complete discretion” to
`commute a defendant’s sentence based on “a wide range of
`factors not comprehended by earlier judicial proceedings
`and sentencing determinations.” Ohio Adult Parole Au-
`
`thority v. Woodard, 523 U. S. 272, 278, 281 (1998) (princi-
`pal opinion); see Tex. Const., Art. IV, §11; Tex. Code Crim.
`Proc. Ann., Art. 48.01 (Vernon Supp. 2014). By granting
`death-eligible defendants an attorney, “Congress ensured
`that no prisoner would be put to death without meaningful
`access to th[is] ‘“fail safe”’ of our justice system.” Harbi-
`son, 556 U. S., at 194 (quoting Herrera v. Collins, 506
`U. S. 390, 415 (1993)). So long as clemency proceedings
`were “available” to Holiday, §3599(e), the interests of
`justice required the appointment of attorneys who would
`represent him in that process. Cf. Christeson v. Roper,
`574 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (per curiam) (slip op., at 8) (re-
`
`versing the denial of a substitution motion under §3599
`despite the “host of procedural obstacles” confronting the
`petitioner’s claims). The District Court’s denial did not
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
`
`Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J.
`
`
`adequately account for Holiday’s statutory right.
`Despite the District Court’s error, I reluctantly join the
`Court’s decision to deny Holiday’s petition for certiorari.
`After the court rejected Holiday’s request for new counsel,
`his original attorneys eventually submitted a clemency
`application on his behalf. This application proved unsuc-
`cessful—and likely would have benefited from additional
`preparation by more zealous advocates. Yet this Court,
`unlike a state court, is likely to have no power to order
`Texas to reconsider its clemency decision with new attor-
`neys representing Holiday.
`
`3

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket