Citation network
Caspari Vs. Bohlen
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 06, 1993
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
October Term, 1993 Syllabus Caspari, Superintendent, Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, Et Al. V. BohlenSearch
-
s habeas corpus petition. However, in reversing, the Federal Court of Appeals extended the rationale of Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
law, and thus that granting habeas relief to respondent would not violate the nonretroactivity principle of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
this Court must apply Teague analysis before considering the merits of respondent's claim. See Graham v. CollinsSearch
-
petition elapsed following exhaustion of the availability of direct appeal to the state courts. See Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
to be dictated by precedent. At that time, the Court had not so applied the Clause, cf., e. g., United States v. DiFrancescoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Bullington, supra, and Arizona v. RumseySearch
-
distinguished, and indeed several of the Court's decisions pointed in the opposite direction, see, e. g., Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
issue. Because that conflict concerned a development in the law over which reasonable jurists could disagree, Sawyer v. SmithSearch
-
Attorney General of Wyoming. 386 JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
three consecutive terms of 15 years in prison. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed respondent's convictions. State v. BohlenSearch
-
Id., at 123. Following Missouri practice, see State v. HoltSearch
-
State v. BohlenSearch
-
S. W. 2d 577, 578 (1985), citing State v. LeeSearch
-
of Appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court's denial of respondent's motion for postconviction relief. Bohlen v. StateSearch
-
In Yee v. EscondidoSearch
-
fairly included in the question presented. Id., at 32. See also American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. HarocoSearch
-
to a state prisoner based on a rule announced after his conviction and sentence became final. See, e. g., Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
Thus, a federal court may, but need not, decline to apply Teague if the State does not argue it. See Schiro v. FarleySearch
-
of constitutional law, the court must apply Teague before considering the merits of the claim. See Graham v. CollinsSearch
-
State in this case is a necessary predicate to the resolution of the question presented in the petition. Cf. Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
decide whether that rule falls within one of the two narrow exceptions to the nonretroactivity principle. See Gilmore v. TaylorSearch
-
a petition for a writ of certiorari has elapsed or a timely filed petition has been finally denied. See Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
that there is no double jeopardy bar to the use of prior convictions in sentencing a persistent offender. Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 554 , 560 (1967). Cf. Moore v. MissouriSearch
-
of that status, so that he cannot be again subjected to a persistent-offender determination. See United States v. WilsonSearch
-
see also id., at 135, citing Chaffin v. StynchcombeSearch
-
Bozza v. UnitedSearch
-
and Stroud v. UnitedSearch
-
the Double Jeopardy Clause to sentencing, but contends that a different result is compelled in this case by Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
U. S. 430 (1981), and Arizona v. RumseySearch
-
U. S., at 441-442, n. 15 (internal quotation marks omitted). We recognized as much in Pennsylvania v. GoldhammerSearch
-
emphasis added). 393 In Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
quoting Barefoot v. EstelleSearch
-
U. S. 880 , 913-914 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting)). See also Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
of the Double Jeopardy Clause to a noncapital sentencing proceeding to be dictated by our precedents. Cf. Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
Clause did not bar the introduction of evidence of prior convictions at resentencing in noncapital cases, Linam v. GriffinSearch
-
Durham v. StateSearch
-
People v. SailorSearch
-
while another Federal Court of Appeals and two other state courts of last resort had held to the contrary, Briggs v. ProcunierSearch
-
State v. HenningsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial