546 US 1 Dye v Hofbauer

class="ad-unit">

Case TextCASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT
OCTOBER TERM, 2005

DYE v. HOFBAUER, WARDEN

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united
states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

No. 04—8384. Decided October 11, 2005

After petitioner Dye’s state convictions for murder and firearm possession
were affirmed on appeal, he was denied habeas relief in Federal District
Court. Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that, although
Dye had raised a prosecutorial misconduct claim in state court, the record
did not show that it was presented as a violation of a federal right;
and concluding that, even had Dye properly raised the claim in state
court, the habeas petition’s prosecutorial misconduct allegations were
too vague and general to be considered fairly presented.

Held: Dye’s federal claim was properly raised in state court, and his federal
habeas petition presented that claim with sufficient clarity. Contrary
to the Sixth Circuit’s holding, the District Court record contains
the brief Dye filed in state court, which sets out the federal claim, outlining
specific prosecutorial misconduct allegations and citing the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments and several relevant federal cases. That brief
was clear that the prosecutorial misconduct claim was based, at least in
part, on a federal right. The Sixth Circuit’s alternative holding is also
incorrect. The federal habeas petition made clear and repeated references
to an appended supporting brief, which presented Dye’s federal
prosecutorial misconduct claim with more than sufficient particularity.

Certiorari granted; 111 Fed. Appx. 363, reversed and remanded.
1

Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Tried by a jury for the third time, petitioner Paul Allen
Dye was convicted in the Recorders Court in Detroit, Michigan,
on two counts of murder and one count of possession of
a firearm during commission of a felony. His defense in each
of his three trials was that the crimes were committed by
one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, who was present at
the scene of the crimes.

The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the convictions on
direct review, People v. Dye, No. 136707 (Nov. 28, 1995) (per
curiam), App. to Pet. for Cert. 109, and further review was
denied by the Supreme Court of Michigan, People v. Dye,
453 Mich. 852, 551 N. W. 2d 189 (1996). Petitioner sought
relief in habeas corpus in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging various federal
constitutional claims. Denied relief, petitioner appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Over the next five years, the Court of Appeals issued various
orders and two opinions in the case. 45 Fed. Appx. 428
(CA6 2002) (Dye I); 111 Fed. Appx. 363 (CA6 2004) (Dye II).
In Dye I, a majority of a divided three-judge panel ruled the
state prosecutor had engaged in flagrant misconduct during
the jury trial. On this ground it reversed the District
Court’s order denying habeas relief. The panel did not address
petitioner’s other claims. 45 Fed. Appx., at 428, n. 1.

Respondent moved for panel or en banc rehearing. In the
time between this motion and its disposition one of the
judges in the majority retired, and the record was returned
to the District Court.

In Dye II, a reconstituted panel granted the petition for
rehearing and ruled in favor of respondent. In an opinion
authored by the original panel’s dissenting judge, the Court
of Appeals held that, although Dye had raised a prosecutorial
misconduct claim in state court, the record did not show that
he presented it there as a violation of a federal right. “Because
the brief filed by the petitioner in his direct appeal to

Per Curiam

the Michigan Court of Appeals is not in the record, we have
no way of determining exactly how he framed the issue in
state court.” 111 Fed. Appx., at 364. As further support
for its conclusion, the panel noted the Michigan Court of Appeals’
decision analyzed the relevant claim only in terms of
state law. The panel concluded, moreover, it would decline
to address the claim even if Dye had properly raised it in
state court because the federal habeas corpus petition’s allegations
were too vague and general to be considered fairly
presented. Ibid. Stating that its previous opinion, Dye I,
had disposed of any remaining claims, the Dye II panel vacated
the prior judgment and affirmed the District Court’s
denial of the habeas corpus petition.

Dye seeks review here. There are two errors in Dye II
meriting reversal of the judgment.

First, the Court of Appeals was incorrect in Dye II to
conclude that, when seeking review in the state appellate
court, petitioner failed to raise the federal claim based on
prosecutorial misconduct. The Court of Appeals examined
the opinion of the state appellate court and noted that it
made no mention of a federal claim. That, however, is not
dispositive. Failure of a state appellate court to mention a
federal claim does not mean the claim was not presented to
it. “It is too obvious to merit extended discussion that
whether the exhaustion requirement . . . has been satisfied
cannot turn upon whether a state appellate court chooses to
ignore in its opinion a federal constitutional claim squarely
raised in petitioner’s brief in the state court....” Smith

v. Digmon, 434 U. S. 332, 333 (1978) (per curiam).

Contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals, the District
Court record contains the brief petitioner filed in state
court, and the brief sets out the federal claim. The fourth
argument heading in his brief before the Michigan Court of
Appeals states: “THE PROSECUTOR DENIED DE-
FENDANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR
TRIAL BY NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF MISCON

Per Curiam

DUCT.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 80 (capitalization in original).
Outlining specific allegations of prosecutorial misconduct,
the text of the brief under this argument heading cites
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States. It further cites the following federal
cases, all of which concern alleged violations of federal due
process rights in the context of prosecutorial misconduct:
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637 (1974); Berger v.
United States, 295 U. S. 78 (1935); United States v. Valentine,
820 F. 2d 565 (CA2 1987); United States v. Burse, 531 F. 2d
1151 (CA2 1976).

This is not an instance where the habeas petitioner failed
to “apprise the state court of his claim that the . . . ruling of
which he complained was not only a violation of state law,
but denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U. S. 364,
366 (1995) (per curiam). Nor is this a case where a state
court needed to look beyond “a petition or a brief (or a similar
document)” to be aware of the federal claim. Baldwin

v. Reese, 541 U. S. 27, 32 (2004). The state-court brief was
clear that the prosecutorial misconduct claim was based, at
least in part, on a federal right. It was error for the Court
of Appeals to conclude otherwise.

A second reason the Dye II panel denied relief was that
the habeas petition filed in the United States District Court
presented the prosecutorial misconduct claim in too vague
and general a form. This alternative holding cannot rescue
the Dye II judgment, for it, too, is incorrect. The habeas
corpus petition made clear and repeated references to an
appended supporting brief, which presented Dye’s federal
claim with more than sufficient particularity. See Fed.
Rules Civ. Proc. 81(a)(2), 10(c). As the prosecutorial misconduct
claim was presented properly, it, and any other federal
claims properly presented, should be addressed by the Court
of Appeals on remand.

Per Curiam

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition
for certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of
Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

546 U.S. 1 - Dye v Hofbauer

546 US 1 Dye v Hofbauer

Advertisement