Netherland v. Tuggle

515 U.S. 951, 116 S. Ct. 4, 132 L. Ed. 2d 879, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 5206
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedSeptember 14, 1995
DocketA-209
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 515 U.S. 951 (Netherland v. Tuggle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Netherland v. Tuggle, 515 U.S. 951, 116 S. Ct. 4, 132 L. Ed. 2d 879, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 5206 (1995).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Applicant asks that we vacate a stay of execution granted Tuggle by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Because we agree with applicant that the stay was improvidently entered, we grant his application to vacate, provided that the stay shall remain in effect until September 20,1995, to allow Tuggle’s counsel opportunity to seek a further stay in this Court.

On June 29, 1995, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating the District Court’s grant- of habeas relief, finding all of Tuggle’s constitutional claims to be without merit. Tuggle v. Thompson, 57 F. 3d 1356. The court stayed the issuance of its mandate on August 2, however, and granted Tuggle a 30-day stay of execution pending the filing of a timely petition for certiorari in this Court; then on August [952]*95225 it extended the stay of execution for the full 90 days allowed to file a certiorari petition in this Court.

Both actions of the court were taken by summary order without opinion or discussion. Nothing indicates that the Court of Appeals even attempted to undertake the three-part inquiry required by our decision in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 895-896 (1983). See also Maggio v. Williams, 464 U. S. 46, 48 (1983) (per curiam); Autry v. Estelle, 464 U. S. 1, 2-3 (1983) (per curiam). There is no hint that the court found that “four Members of th[is] Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari” or that “a significant possibility of reversal” existed. Barefoot, supra, at 895. We think the inescapable conclusion is that the Court of Appeals mistakenly believed that a capital defendant as a matter of right was entitled to a stay of execution until he has filed a petition for certiorari in due course. But this view was rejected in Autry, supra, at 2, and Maggio, supra, at 48.

Accordingly, the application to vacate the stay of execution is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Steckel v. State
884 A.2d 483 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2005)
White Ex Rel. Heidnik v. Horn
54 F. Supp. 2d 457 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1999)
Sheppard v. Early
Fourth Circuit, 1999
Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson
122 F.3d 718 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Netherland v. Gray
519 U.S. 1301 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Bennett v. Angelone
Fourth Circuit, 1996
Beaver v. Netherland
Fourth Circuit, 1996
Gregory Warren Beaver v. J.D. Netherland, Warden
101 F.3d 977 (Fourth Circuit, 1996)
Angelone v. Bennett
519 U.S. 959 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Bowersox v. Williams
517 U.S. 345 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Lawrence Ex Rel. Lawrence v. Chater
516 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Stutson v. United States
516 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Gary Burris v. Al C. Parke, Warden
72 F.3d 47 (Seventh Circuit, 1995)
Netherland v. Tuggle
515 U.S. 951 (Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
515 U.S. 951, 116 S. Ct. 4, 132 L. Ed. 2d 879, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 5206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/netherland-v-tuggle-scotus-1995.