Autry v. Davis
In brief
The Supreme Court refused to hear Autry’s petition, so the Fifth Circuit’s decision for Davis remains in place; the Supreme Court did not rule on the underlying claims.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 4, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court denied Autry’s petition for review, leaving the Fifth Circuit’s decision in favor of Davis in place.
- Who it affects
- Autry did not receive Supreme Court review, and the Fifth Circuit’s decision remains in place for his case; this order does not resolve his ineffective-lawyer or Suspension Clause claims.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The petition challenged, among other things, the federal one-year deadline for state prisoners’ habeas corpus petitions under AEDPA as inconsistent with the Constitution’s Suspension Clause.
The filing also challenged the federal one-year deadline for state prisoners’ challenges to their imprisonment, arguing that it conflicted with the Constitution’s Suspension Clause.
Question presented
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the California Supreme Court’s summary denial of Mr. Autry’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of his organic brain damage and childhood trauma was not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), or an unreasonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The Supreme Court’s action on this petition is finished. Autry’s case remains governed by the Fifth Circuit’s decision, with no Supreme Court ruling on the underlying claims.
Documents
Opinions
Key filings
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
More questions
- Did the Court decide whether Autry’s trial lawyer was ineffective?
- No. The Court denied the petition without deciding that question.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.