By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 15, 2015//
U.S. Supreme Court
Criminal
Habeas Corpus – Appeal
A successful habeas corpus petitioner is not required to take a cross-appeal or obtain a certificate of appealability to argue an issue on appeal.
Because Jennings is an appellee who did not cross-appeal, he may “urge” his Spisak theory unless doing so would enlarge his rights or lessen the State’s rights under the District Court’s judgment. United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U. S. 425. Jennings’ rights under the judgment were release, retrial, or commutation within a fixed time, at the State’s option, and his Spisak claim, if accepted, would give him no more. The State’s rights under the judgment were to retain Jennings in custody pending retrial or to commute his sentence; the Spisak claim, if accepted, would not further encumber the State. The State contends that, because the District Court’s opinion entitled Jennings only to retrial (or resentencing) without the challenged errors, each additional basis asserted by Jennings sought to lessen the State’s rights at retrial, and thus requires a cross-appeal. But this view is contrary to the ordinary behavior of courts, which reduce their opinions and verdicts to judgments precisely to define the parties’ rights and liabilities. A prevailing party seeks to enforce a district court’s judgment, not its reasoning. Rogers v. Hill, 289 U. S. 582. Thus, any potential claim that would have entitled Jennings to a new sentencing proceeding could have been advanced consistent with American Railway.
537 Fed. Appx. 326, reversed and remanded.
13-7211 Jennings v. Stephens
Scalia, J.; Thomas, J., dissenting.