Summary
Selvage v. Collins, 108 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1990) (per curiam). The Supreme Court vacated a Fifth Circuit judgment and remanded for determination of whether a Texas death row inmate's Penry claim was procedurally barred under Texas law, given the intervening decision in Penry v. Lynaugh. The Court had granted certiorari on whether there was "cause" for failing to raise a Penry-type claim at trial and whether a procedural bar would result in a "fundamental miscarriage of justice," but held that the state procedural bar issue should be resolved first by the Fifth Circuit. The case addresses procedural default, cause and prejudice, and the interplay between federal habeas review and state procedural law in capital cases.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- At the time petitioner was tried, was there 'cause' for not raising a claim based upon arguments later accepted in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), and if not, would the application of a procedural bar to the claim result in a 'fundamental miscarriage of justice,' Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 537-538 (1986)?
Holdings
- The Court vacates the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remands for the Fifth Circuit to determine whether the Penry claim is presently procedurally barred under Texas law, because the issue of procedural bar should be decided first, and the Fifth Circuit is more familiar with Texas law.
Key quotations
“At the time petitioner was tried, was there 'cause' for not raising a claim based upon arguments later accepted in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), and if not, would the application of a procedural bar to the claim result in a 'fundamental miscarriage of justice,' Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 537-538 (1986)?” (at 109)
“Because our decision in Penry was handed down after petitioner's petition for certiorari was filed, and may have affected the view of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on the issue whether petitioner's claim is presently barred, we think that issue should be decided before we address the question on which we granted certiorari. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is more familiar with Texas law than we are, and we therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to it for determination whether petitioner's Penry claim is presently procedurally barred under Texas law.” (at 109-110)
Factual background
Petitioner was sentenced to death. He sought certiorari to review a Fifth Circuit decision refusing to stay his execution. The Supreme Court granted a stay and withheld disposition pending Penry v. Lynaugh, which addressed the Texas death penalty scheme. After Penry, the Court granted certiorari on the question of whether there was cause for not raising a Penry claim and whether a procedural bar would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Petitioner contended that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals would no longer deem his Penry claim procedurally barred under Ex parte Chambers, while respondent disputed that.
Procedural history
Petitioner sought certiorari in March 1988 to review a decision of the Fifth Circuit refusing to stay the execution of his death sentence. The Supreme Court granted a stay of execution and withheld disposition pending Penry v. Lynaugh. After Penry, the Court granted certiorari to answer a specific question about cause and fundamental miscarriage of justice. The Court now vacates and remands for determination of whether the Penry claim is presently procedurally barred under Texas law.
Remand instructions
Remand to the Fifth Circuit for determination of whether petitioner's Penry claim is presently procedurally barred under Texas law.