Filed: Mar. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2020
Summary: FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MICHAEL R. MERZ , Magistrate Judge . This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Notice of Additional Authority (ECF No. 204). In the Notice, Chin notes the Court that one of his pending proposed amendments — to add a Twenty-Third Ground for Relief based on Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016) — is subject to "relevant, recent controlling authority," to wit, McKinney v. Arizona, 589 U.S. ___,
Summary: FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MICHAEL R. MERZ , Magistrate Judge . This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Notice of Additional Authority (ECF No. 204). In the Notice, Chin notes the Court that one of his pending proposed amendments — to add a Twenty-Third Ground for Relief based on Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016) — is subject to "relevant, recent controlling authority," to wit, McKinney v. Arizona, 589 U.S. ___, ..
More
FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge.
This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Notice of Additional Authority (ECF No. 204). In the Notice, Chin notes the Court that one of his pending proposed amendments — to add a Twenty-Third Ground for Relief based on Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016) — is subject to "relevant, recent controlling authority," to wit, McKinney v. Arizona, 589 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 702 (2020) (Notice, ECF No. 204, PageID 10357).
The Magistrate Judge agrees with Petitioner that McKinney is relevant and controlling. Relevant to the proposed amendment in this case, the Supreme Court held:
McKinney's case became final on direct review in 1996, long before Ring and Hurst. Ring and Hurst do not apply retroactively on collateral review. See Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358 (2004). Because this case comes to us on state collateral review, Ring and Hurst do not apply.
140 S.Ct. at 75. Justice Ginsburg in dissent would have held that McKinney's case was before the Supreme Court on direct review; but even if her view on that point had prevailed, it would not have changed the effect of McKinney on this case: Chin is plainly before this Court on collateral review and Justice Ginsburg expresses no dissent from the general proposition laid down in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), and reinforced in Schriro that new rules of constitutional law do not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review unless they fall within one of the two exceptions adopted in Teague. McKinney, 140 S.Ct. at 77. Thus the position of the undersigned1 that Hurst is not to be applied retroactively in habeas corpus has now been adopted by the Supreme Court.
Based on McKinney, the Magistrate Judge again respectfully recommends that Petitioner's Motion to Amend to add a claim under Hurst be denied.
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report and Recommendations. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
