smithbrief online - No. 05-11304 IN THE Supreme Court of...

This preview shows page 1 - 9 out of 40 pages.

The preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 40 pages.
No. 05-11304INTHESupreme Court of the UnitedStatesLAROYCELATHAIRSMITH,vs.STATE OFTEXAS,Petitioner,Respondent.On Writ of Certiorari to theTexas Court of Criminal AppealsBRIEFAMICUS CURIAEOF THECRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATIONIN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTKENTS. SCHEIDEGGERCriminal Justice Legal Fdn.2131 L StreetSacramento, CA95816(916) 446-0345Attorney for Amicus CuriaeCriminal Justice Legal Foundation
(Intentionally left blank)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED1.Where a defendant has failed to object to jury instruc-tions at trial, does the State lose its right to a plain-error typeof review on remand because the state appellate court initiallybut erroneously held there was no error?2. Is a state procedural ground “adequate” when thestate’s procedural law provides both fair notice of theprocedure to preserve claims and a reasonable opportunity todo so, but the rule and its exceptions continue to evolvethrough case law.3.Is Texas’sAlmanzarule an adequate and independentstate ground of decision in this case?(i)
(Intentionally left blank)
TABLE OF CONTENTSQuestions presented.................................................................iTable of authorities.................................................................vInterest ofamicuscuriae.........................................................1Summary of facts andcase.....................................................2Summary ofargument............................................................3Argument................................................................................4IWhere a defendant has failed to object at trial, the statedoes not lose its right to review under a “plain error”type of standard merely because the state court initiallyheldthere was no error................................................................4A.Plain error.................................................................4B. TheBookerremands.................................................5C. TheAlmanzarule......................................................8IIA heightened standard of review for claims not made at trialis an independent state ground when it operates to denyrelief based on an assessment of the degree of harm to thedefendant.........................................................................10III“Reasonable opportunity” should be adopted as the test ofadequate state procedural grounds and the prior patchworkof confusing phrases discarded........................................15
(iii)IVState cases which deny defaulted claims on the meritsshould not be deemed failures to enforce the rule.............20VDefendant had fair notice of the rule and an opportunity tocomply, and the rule was fairly applied to his case...........24Conclusion............................................................................27
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCasesAke v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68, 105 S. Ct. 1087,84 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10, 11Almanza v. State, 686 S. W. 2d 157(Tex. Crim. App. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . .3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 24Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348,147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000)....................................................6Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 111 S. Ct. 1246,113 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1991)....................................................4Ayers v. Belmontes, 549 U. S.(No. 05-493,Nov. 13, 2006)...................................................................14Barr v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 146, 84 S. Ct. 1734,12 L. Ed. 2d 766 (1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16, 17Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F. 3d 573 (CA9 2003).....................18Black v. State, 816 S. W. 2d 350(Tex. Crim. App. 1991).....................................................25Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531,159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004)....................................................6Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194,10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)....................................................11Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 113 S. Ct. 1710,123 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993)..................................................15Brown v. Western R. Co. of Ala., 338 U. S. 294,70 S. Ct. 105, 94 L. Ed. 100 (1949)..................................16Central Union Telephone Co. v. Edwardsville, 269 U. S. 190,46 S. Ct. 90, 70 L. Ed. 229 (1925). . . . . . . . . . . . . .16,17
Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824,17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 10Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 111 S. Ct. 2546,115 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1991)..................................................20Davis v. United States, 411 U. S. 233, 93 S. Ct. 1577,36 L. Ed. 2d 216 (1973)....................................................24Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 44 S. Ct. 13,68 L. Ed. 143 (1923). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16, 17, 25

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 40 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
N/A
Tags
Business, The Land, United States Supreme Court cases, State court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture