holding that district court lacked jurisdiction to 18 review petitioner’s second habeas corpus petition upon finding that there was no basis for 19 supposing, as Ninth Circuit did, that petitioner who elected to proceed to adjudication of his 20 exhausted claims regarding his conviction in initial petition while appeal on his resentencing was 21 still pending might later assert that subsequent petition on his sentencing claims was not “second 22 or successive”
How later courts described this case
- holding that district court lacked jurisdiction to 18 review petitioner’s second habeas corpus petition upon finding that there was no basis for 19 supposing, as Ninth Circuit did, that petitioner who elected to proceed to adjudication of his 20 exhausted claims regarding his conviction in initial petition while appeal on his resentencing was 21 still pending might later assert that subsequent petition on his sentencing claims was not “second 22 or successive”
- ruling that when a state court affirms a conviction on direct review, but remands for re-sentencing, the judgment of conviction does not become final, for purposes of the statute of limitations, until the completion of direct review from the new judgment of sentence; citing Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212 (1937) (“Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.”)
- holding that 6 decision to exempt petitioner from prior authorization requirements of § 2254(b)(3) based on his “legitimate excuse for failing to raise” his claims in the prior habeas action was inconsistent with precedent and practice for mixed petitions, and remanding based upon district court’s lack of jurisdiction over the second or successive petition
- holding that a district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a second or successive petition “contesting the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state court” and that a petitioner asserting new claims in connection with that state court judgment must first seek authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing a second challenge
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 1
Per Curiam
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 05–9222
_________________
LONNIE LEE BURTON, PETITIONER v. BELINDA
STEWART, SUPERINTENDENT, STAFFORD
CREEK CORRECTIONS CENTER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[January 9, 2007]
PER CURIAM.
We granted certiorari in this case, 547 U. S. ___ (2006),
to determine whether our decision in Blakely v. Washing
ton, 542 U. S. 296 (2004), announced a new rule and, if so,
whether it applies retroactively on collateral review. We
do not answer these questions, however, because peti
tioner—a state prisoner seeking postconviction relief from
the federal courts—failed to comply with the gatekeeping
requirements of 28 U. S. C. §2244(b). That failure de
prived the District Court of jurisdiction to hear his claims.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Ap
peals and remand with instructions to direct the District
Court to dismiss petitioner’s habeas corpus application for
lack of jurisdiction.
I
On October 31, 1994, a Washington jury convicted peti
tioner Lonnie Burton of rape, robbery, and burglary. App.
3–4. The state trial court initially entered judgment and
sentence on December 19, 1994 (1994 judgment). In that
judgment, the court sentenced Burton to a total of 562
2 BURTON v. STEWART
Per Curiam
months in prison. State v. Burton, No. 35747–6–I etc.,
1997 WL 306429, *12 (Wash. App., June 9, 1997). The
trial court rested the 562-month sentence on two alterna
tive grounds under Washington’s determinate sentencing
scheme. First, it sentenced Burton to within-guidelines
sentences for each offense—153 months for robbery, 105
months for burglary, and 304 months for rape—and di
rected that the sentences be served consecutively, for a
total term of 562 months. Id., at *13. Under Washing
ton’s “multiple offense policy,” imposition of consecutive
sentences constitutes an “exceptional” sentence, Wash.
Rev. Code §§9.94A.120(18), 9.94A.400(1)(a) (2000),1 but
the trial court justified such a sentence on the ground that
running the three terms concurrently would result in a
sentence “clearly too lenient” in light of the purposes of
Washington’s sentencing scheme. See §9.94A.390(2)(i).2
The second basis on which the court calculated a 562
month term was by running the sentences concurrently
but imposing an exceptional sentence of 562 months solely
for the rape conviction—again on the ground that the total
sentence would otherwise be “clearly too lenient.” State v.
Burton, 1997 WL 306429, at *13.
After an unrelated prior conviction was overturned,
Burton requested resentencing. Accordingly, over a year
after the 1994 judgment, the trial court entered an
amended judgment and sentence (1996 judgment), which,
after recalculating Burton’s offender scores, imposed a
new sentence that relied solely on an exceptional 562
month sentence for the rape conviction, run concurrently
——————
1 As we noted in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296, 298, n. 1
(2004), Washington has since amended and recodified its criminal code.
Citations are to provisions in effect at the time of Burton’s sentencing.
2 Specifically, the standard range sentences for rape, robbery, and
burglary, if run concurrently, would have punished Burton as if he had
committed only the rape. State v. Burton, No. 35747–6–I etc., 1997 WL
306429, *11–*12 (Wash. App., June 9, 1997).
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 3
Per Curiam
with the other two terms. Ibid.; App. 45. On direct re
view, the Washington Court of Appeals upheld Burton’s
conviction, State v. Burton, supra, a decision the Washing
ton Supreme Court declined to review, State v. Burton,
133 Wash. 2d 1025, 950 P. 2d 475 (1997), cert. denied, 523
U. S. 1082 (1998). The State Court of Appeals remanded
for resentencing, however, because the trial court’s exclu
sive reliance on the exceptional rape sentence decreased
Burton’s potential early release credits, raising vindictive
ness concerns. State v. Burton, 1997 WL 306429, at *14.
In response, on March 16, 1998, the trial court entered a
second amended judgment and sentence (1998 judgment).
App. 3. In this judgment, the trial court recited the jury’s
1994 guilty verdicts, id., at 3–4, and again imposed a 562
month sentence, reverting to its original basis for doing
so—running the three within-guidelines sentences con
secutively. Id., at 7, 29–32. Burton sought review of this
sentence, but the Washington courts eventually rejected
his challenges both on direct review and in state postcon
viction proceedings. Id., at 43–55; App. to Brief for Peti
tioner 1a–4a.
On December 28, 1998, while state review of his sen
tence was still pending, Burton filed a petition under 28
U. S. C. §2254 for a writ of habeas corpus in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washing
ton (1998 petition). App. 34. The standard form he filled
out warned applicants that they must “ordinarily first
exhaust . . . available state court remedies as to each
ground on which” they sought “action by the federal
court,” or run the risk of being “barred from presenting
additional grounds at a later date.” Id., at 37–38. Burton
nonetheless challenged his custody only by disputing the
constitutionality of his three convictions, not by pressing
any sentencing claims. Where the form requested the
“[d]ate of judgment of conviction,” Burton listed “Dec. 16,
1994,” corresponding roughly to the date of the 1994
4 BURTON v. STEWART
Per Curiam
judgment. Id., at 34. The form asked whether the appli
cant had “any petition or appeal now pending in any court,
either state or federal, as to the judgment under attack,” to
which Burton answered “Yes,” explaining that “[the]
sentence I received at resentencing is on direct appeal.”
Id., at 40 (emphasis added). The District Court denied
relief, id., at 42, and the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, Burton v. Walter, 21 Fed.
Appx. 632 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U. S. 1060 (2002).
Over three years subsequent to filing the 1998 petition,
after the Washington courts had rejected his sentencing
challenges, Burton filed another federal habeas petition
(2002 petition), again in the Western District of Washing
ton. This time, Burton claimed to be contesting the 1998
judgment, and challenged only the constitutionality of his
sentence. In particular, he alleged that it violated our
decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000),
to the extent the sentencing court departed from a stan
dard sentence based on its own factual determinations.
The District Court again denied the petition, App. 77, and
the Ninth Circuit again affirmed, Burton v. Waddington,
142 Fed. Appx. 297 (2005). Both courts rejected the
State’s contention that the District Court lacked jurisdic
tion to entertain the petition because Burton had not
obtained an order from the Court of Appeals authorizing
him to file a “second or successive” habeas petition, as
required by the habeas gatekeeping provisions, 28 U. S. C.
§2244(b)(3). On the merits, the Ninth Circuit rejected
Burton’s Apprendi claim and agreed with the State that
Burton could not benefit from Blakely v. Washington, 542
U. S. 296, because that decision announced a new rule
that did not apply retroactively to Burton’s sentence. 142
Fed. Appx., at 299.
It is this petition, the 2002 petition, that is before us
today. We conclude, though, that because the 2002 peti
tion is a “second or successive” petition that Burton did
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 5
Per Curiam
not seek or obtain authorization to file in the District
Court, the District Court never had jurisdiction to consider
it in the first place.
II
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (AEDPA) established a stringent set of procedures
that a prisoner “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court,” 28 U. S. C. §2254(a), must follow if he wishes
to file a “second or successive” habeas corpus application
challenging that custody, §2244(b)(1). In pertinent part,
before filing the application in the district court, a pris
oner “shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an
order authorizing the district court to consider the appli
cation.” §2244(b)(3)(A). A three-judge panel of the court of
appeals may authorize the filing of the second or succes
sive application only if it presents a claim not previously
raised that satisfies one of the two grounds articulated in
§2244(b)(2). §2244(b)(3)(C); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S.
524, 529–530 (2005); see also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U. S.
651, 656–657, 664 (1996).
Burton’s 2002 petition was a “second or successive”
habeas application for which he did not seek, much less
obtain, authorization to file. When Burton filed his first
petition, the 1998 petition, he was being held in custody
pursuant to the 1998 judgment, which had been entered
some nine months earlier. When he filed his second peti
tion, the 2002 petition, he was still being held in custody
pursuant to the same 1998 judgment. In short, Burton
twice brought claims contesting the same custody imposed
by the same judgment of a state court. As a result, under
AEDPA, he was required to receive authorization from the
Court of Appeals before filing his second challenge. Be
cause he did not do so, the District Court was without
jurisdiction to entertain it.
The Ninth Circuit determined that the 2002 petition
6 BURTON v. STEWART
Per Curiam
was not “second or successive” because, under McCleskey
v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467 (1991), Burton had a “legitimate
excuse for failing to raise” his sentencing challenges in the
1998 petition. 142 Fed. Appx., at 299 (quoting McCleskey,
supra, at 490; internal quotation marks omitted). Specifi
cally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because Burton had
not exhausted his sentencing claims in state court when
he filed the 1998 petition, “they were not ripe for federal
habeas review” at that time. 142 Fed. Appx., at 298.
We assume for purposes of this case, without deciding,
that the Ninth Circuit’s “legitimate excuse” approach to
determining whether a petition is “second or successive” is
correct. That court’s ruling that Burton had a “legitimate
excuse,” however, is inconsistent with the precise practice
we have explained governs in circumstances such as Bur
ton’s. The plurality opinion in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S.
509, 520–522 (1982), stated that district courts should
dismiss “mixed petitions”—those with exhausted and
unexhausted claims—and that petitioners with such
petitions have two options. They may withdraw a mixed
petition, exhaust the remaining claims, and return to
district court with a fully exhausted petition. We have
held that in such circumstances the later filed petition
would not be “second or successive.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U. S. 473, 485–486 (2000).
Alternatively, prisoners filing mixed petitions may
proceed with only the exhausted claims, but doing so risks
subjecting later petitions that raise new claims to rigorous
procedural obstacles. Lundy, supra, at 520–521 (plurality
opinion); see also Slack, supra, at 486–487. As noted, the
form Burton used in filing his first petition warned of just
that consequence. App. 37–38, supra, at 3. There is no
basis in our cases for supposing, as the Ninth Circuit did,
that a petitioner with unexhausted claims who chooses the
second of these options—who elects to proceed to adjudica
tion of his exhausted claims—may later assert that a
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 7
Per Curiam
subsequent petition is not “second or successive” precisely
because his new claims were unexhausted at the time he
filed his first petition. This reasoning conflicts with both
Lundy and §2244(b) and would allow prisoners to file
separate habeas petitions in the not uncommon situation
where a conviction is upheld but a sentence is reversed.
Such a result would be inconsistent with both the exhaus
tion requirement, with its purpose of reducing “piecemeal
litigation,” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 180 (2001),
and AEDPA, with its goal of “streamlining federal habeas
proceedings.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U. S. 269, 277 (2005).
Burton directs us to two decisions, Stewart v. Martinez-
Villareal, 523 U. S. 637 (1998), and Slack, supra, in which
we have not regarded subsequent petitions to be “second
or successive.” But these cases are readily distinguish
able. In Martinez-Villareal, we held that the claim of a
capital prisoner that he was insane and therefore could
not be put to death was necessarily unripe until the State
issued a warrant for his execution, and so the prisoner’s
subsequent request for consideration of that previously
unripe claim was not “second or successive” for purposes of
§2244(b). 523 U. S., at 644–645. But unlike Burton, the
prisoner there had attempted to bring this claim in his
initial habeas petition, prompting us to look to Lundy in
concluding that the claim “should be treated in the same
manner as the claim of a petitioner who returns to a fed
eral habeas court after exhausting state remedies,” that is,
characterizing it as not “second or successive.” Martinez-
Villareal, 523 U. S., at 644. Indeed, we expressly declined
to address the situation where a petitioner fails to raise
the claim in the initial petition. See id., at 645, n. In this
case, Burton did not raise the relevant claims in his 1998
petition. Without more, therefore, our holding in Marti
nez-Villareal does not support the conclusion that Burton’s
2002 petition was not “second or successive.”
Slack is equally unhelpful to Burton; that decision
8 BURTON v. STEWART
Per Curiam
merely confirmed that when a “first” petition is dismissed
because it contains unexhausted claims, a prisoner return
ing later with a fully exhausted petition would not con
front the “second or successive” bar. 529 U. S., at 485–
486. We held that a “petition filed after a mixed petition
has been dismissed under Rose v. Lundy before the district
court adjudicated any claims is to be treated as ‘any other
first petition’ and is not a second or successive petition.”
Id., at 487 (emphasis added). See also id., at 478 (“[A]
habeas petition which is filed after an initial petition was
dismissed without adjudication on the merits for failure to
exhaust state remedies is not a ‘second or successive’
petition” (emphasis added)). Burton’s case is quite differ
ent—his first petition was not subject to dismissal as
containing unexhausted claims, and in fact was adjudi
cated on the merits.
Moving beyond the ground relied upon by the Ninth
Circuit, Burton argues that his 1998 and 2002 petitions
challenged different judgments. He notes that his 1998
petition identified the pertinent judgment as the 1994
judgment, App. 34, while the 2002 petition challenged the
sentence imposed in the 1998 judgment. The 1998 judg
ment, however, had been entered nine months before
Burton filed his first petition. That judgment, the same
one challenged in the subsequent 2002 petition, was the
judgment pursuant to which Burton was being detained.
Unlike In re Taylor, 171 F. 3d 185 (CA4 1999), cited by
Burton, there was no new judgment intervening between
the two habeas petitions. In his 1998 petition, Burton
specifically described his unexhausted sentencing claims
as claims “as to the judgment under attack,” App. 40,
belying any notion that those claims arose from a judg
ment distinct from the one challenged in 1998.3
——————
3 For the same reasons, Burton’s reliance on Castro v. United States,
540 U. S. 375 (2003), is misplaced. That case reversed a lower court’s
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 9
Per Curiam
Burton finally contends that had he not filed the 1998
petition when he did, and instead waited until state re
view of his sentencing claims was complete, he risked
losing the opportunity to challenge his conviction in fed
eral court due to AEDPA’s 1-year statute of limitations.
See §2244(d)(1). But this argument misreads AEDPA,
which states that the limitations period applicable to “a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court” shall run from, as relevant here, “the date on which
the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of the time for seeking such re
view.” §2244(d)(1)(A). “Final judgment in a criminal case
means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” Berman
v. United States, 302 U. S. 211, 212 (1937). Accordingly,
Burton’s limitations period did not begin until both his
conviction and sentence “became final by the conclusion of
direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such
review”—which occurred well after Burton filed his 1998
petition.
Burton argues in rebuttal that this reasoning would
necessarily mean the District Court lacked jurisdiction to
consider the 1998 petition, but he is mistaken. Section
2254(a) states that a district court “shall entertain” a
habeas petition “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant
to the judgment of a State court.” When he filed the 1998
petition, Burton assuredly was “in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court”—even if, at that point, the 1998
judgment was not final for purposes of triggering AEDPA’s
statute of limitations.
The long and short of it is that Burton neither sought
——————
recharacterization of a motion requesting a new trial pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 as a first habeas petition. Here
Burton filed his first habeas petition as such in 1998; it involves no
similar “recharacterization” to recognize that the judgment pursuant to
which Burton was confined at the time was the same judgment that
gave rise to the sentence later challenged in his second habeas petition.
10 BURTON v. STEWART
Per Curiam
nor received authorization from the Court of Appeals
before filing his 2002 petition, a “second or successive”
petition challenging his custody, and so the District Court
was without jurisdiction to entertain it. The judgment of
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
direct the District Court to dismiss the habeas petition for
lack of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.