PERRY v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 8:14-cv-2009-T-23EAJ. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20141219997
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge. Perry moves both to expand the record and for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 20) As Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388 , 1398 (2011), explains, review of the state court decision is limited to the record that was before the state court. We now hold that review under 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Section 2254(d)(1) refers, in the past tense, to a state-court adjudica
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge. Perry moves both to expand the record and for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 20) As Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388 , 1398 (2011), explains, review of the state court decision is limited to the record that was before the state court. We now hold that review under 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Section 2254(d)(1) refers, in the past tense, to a state-court adjudicat..
More
ORDER
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge.
Perry moves both to expand the record and for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 20) As Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011), explains, review of the state court decision is limited to the record that was before the state court.
We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Section 2254(d)(1) refers, in the past tense, to a state-court adjudication that "resulted in" a decision that was contrary to, or "involved" an unreasonable application of, established law. This backward-looking language requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time, i.e., the record before the state court.
Consequently, Pinholster requires the denial of Perry's motion. The review of Perry's habeas application is limited to the facts that were before the state court.
Accordingly, Perry's motion (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
