Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
On appeal from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Sometimes you wonder if a Supreme Court Justice draws the short straw and has to write about that procedural issue that makes the eyes glaze over and the reader fall asleep somewhere in the first paragraph. This is one of those cases. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court. In this summary, Clarinet Esq. will endeavor to prevent mental exhaustion.
The question in this case is entirely procedural: When should Carlos Jimenez have filed his federal appeal?
In 1995, Jimenez was convicted of a burglary. On appeal to the Texas Appeals Court, his attorney told the court that Jimenez didn't have a non-frivolous reason to appeal the conviction. The attorney dropped the case. At this point, if he had known that this attorney had dropped the case, Jimenez could have filed an appeal brief by himself. But he didn't know. The letter that told him that his attorney was not going to file an appeal was sent to the wrong address. The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed Jimenez's appeal in September 1996. Because the Appeals Court also had the wrong address, Jimenez didn't get the letter from the Texas Court that told him that the appeal was dismissed.
When Jimenez finally learned that he'd missed his chance to file a brief, he asked the Texas Court of Appeals to give him a second chance to file a brief. In 2002, the Texas Court gave him that chance. Jimenez filed a brief. And, ultimately, he lost his second appeal.
So now he wanted to file a federal habeas corpus appeal. But when he filed it, the federal district court told him he had filed his habeas appeal too late. The district court refused to consider the merits of Jimenez's appeal.
Jimenz's petition failed in the district court because prisoners must file habeas corpus appeals within one year of the latest of these four conditions:
The important condition for this case is the first one. Jimenez's appeal is prevented if he appeals his conviction more than one year after the date that the direct review of the case ends. Jimenez's problem is that the direct review ended twice, once in 1996 and a second time — after he was allowed to reopen his appeal to file the brief — in 2003. The district court said that once the first direct appeal ended in 1996, Jimenez should have filed his appeal one year later. By waiting till 2004, Jimenez waited too long to petition for federal relief.
Jimenez appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit decided that the district court resolved the case correctly, and that no reasonable judge could disagree. The Supreme Court took the case, and reversed. Apparently, nine reasonable Justices can disagree with the district court's opinion.
And how did the Supreme Court decide this case?
Justice Thomas wrote the opinion, so you could bet that the "plain language" of the statute would be the controlling factor. Oddly, its not like the statute plainly says anything about circumstances like this one. But, then, the Texas court reopened the direct appeal, and the direct review became final in 2004 — nevermind that the direct review ended once before. Because the statute says "direct review," Jimenez can have a federal district court look at the merit of his appeal.
Not that he's likely to win. On the contrary, Jimenez will have a hard time convincing any court to reverse the conviction. He was convicted of burglary because he plead guilty. When Jimenez plead guilty, he deferred adjudication of his guilty plea. The defered adjudication provided that if Jimenez managed to stay out of trouble for five years, he wouldn't go to prison. He didn't manage it. In the fourth year a Texas court convicted Jimenez for violating his parole.