Summary
holding that a state court's decision is not entitled to AEDPA deference under 2254(d) where the court “unreasonably refuses to extend [a legal principle from Supreme Court precedent] to a new context where it should apply”
Summary of this case from Brumfield v. CainOpinion
No. 08–70023.
2011-12-30
Elroy CHESTER, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent–Appellee.
Susan Carol Orlansky (argued), (Court–Appointed), Jeffrey Marc Feldman, Feldman, Orlansky & Sanders, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner–Appellant. Matthew Dennis Ottoway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Postconviction Lit. Div., Austin, TX, for Respondent–Appellee.
Susan Carol Orlansky (argued), (Court–Appointed), Jeffrey Marc Feldman, Feldman, Orlansky & Sanders, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner–Appellant. Matthew Dennis Ottoway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Postconviction Lit. Div., Austin, TX, for Respondent–Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; David Folsom, Judge.ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC(Opinion Dec. 30, 2011, 5th Cir., 666 F.3d 340)Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
DENNIS, J., dissents from the denial of panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion.
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc, (Fed. R.App. P. and 5TH Cir. R. 35) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED.