| Syllabus | Opinion [ Breyer ] | Dissent [ Stevens ] |
|---|---|---|
| HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
GEORGE H. BALDWIN, PETITIONER v.
MICHAEL
REESE
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[March 2, 2004]
Justice Stevens, dissenting.
It is appropriate to disregard this Court’s Rule 15.2 and permit respondents to defend a judgment on grounds not raised in the brief in opposition when the omitted issue is “predicate to an intelligent resolution of the question presented.” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 38 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). I would do so in this case. Respondent satisfactorily demonstrates that there is no significant difference between an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim predicated on the Oregon Constitution and one based on federal law. Brief for Respondent 29—35; see also Guinn v. Cupp, 304 Ore. 488, 495—496, 747 P.2d 984, 988—989 (1988) (in banc). It is therefore clear that the state courts did have a fair opportunity to assess respondent’s federal claim. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.