Ylst v. Nunnemaker

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsFederal Habeas CorpusState Procedural Defaulthabeas corpusprocedural defaultunexplained state orderslook throughstate court judgments

Facts

At respondent's 1975 California murder trial, the State introduced psychiatric testimony based on a custodial interview, and respondent did not object. On direct appeal, respondent argued for the first time that the testimony was inadmissible because no Miranda warning preceded the interview. The California Court of Appeal rejected that claim solely on the state procedural rule that a Miranda objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Respondent later filed state habeas petitions, including a second habeas petition in the California Supreme Court that was denied without explanation, and then sought federal habeas relief.

Issue

When the last reasoned state-court decision expressly rejects a federal claim on a state procedural ground, does a later unexplained denial of state habeas by a higher state court amount to a merits decision that removes the procedural bar for federal habeas review? More generally, how should federal habeas courts treat unexplained state-court orders when determining whether a claim was denied on procedural or merits grounds?

Rule

Where there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim are presumed to rest on the same ground. Thus, if the last reasoned state opinion explicitly imposes a procedural default, federal habeas courts should look through later unexplained orders and presume those orders did not silently disregard the bar and decide the merits, unless strong evidence rebuts that presumption.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Devin Cross was convicted of robbery. On direct appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals issued a written opinion rejecting his Sixth Amendment claim solely because his lawyer had not preserved the issue at trial; years later, the Ohio Supreme Court denied his state habeas petition in a one-line order with no explanation.

In Devin's later federal habeas case, how should the federal court treat the Ohio Supreme Court's unexplained order?

Explanation. Where there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders rejecting the same claim are presumed to rest on the same ground. If the last reasoned opinion explicitly imposed a procedural default, a federal habeas court should presume the later silent order did not silently set aside that bar and decide the merits. That is the look-through presumption.