Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007)

In the case of Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007), the underlying events began when Lonnie Lee Burton was convicted by a Washington jury on October 31, 1994, for multiple offenses including rape, robbery, and burglary. The trial court initially sentenced him to a total of 562 months in prison on December 19, 1994, based on two alternative grounds under Washington's determinate sentencing scheme. The court justified the imposition of consecutive sentences as an "exceptional" sentence, asserting that concurrent sentences would be "clearly too lenient." After an unrelated prior conviction was overturned, Burton sought resentencing, which led to an amended judgment in 1996 that still imposed a 562-month sentence based solely on the exceptional sentence for the rape conviction. Following further appeals and remands, the trial court issued a second amended judgment in 1998, reaffirming the 562-month sentence. The procedural history of the case involves Burton's attempts to seek postconviction relief through federal courts after exhausting state remedies. He filed a habeas corpus application, which was initially reviewed by the District Court. However, the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari to determine whether the decision in Blakely v. Washington announced a new rule that applied retroactively on collateral review. The Supreme Court, however, did not address these questions, as it found that Burton had failed to comply with the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. §2244(b), which deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to hear his claims. The relevant background context includes the implications of Washington's sentencing laws and the evolving nature of Burton's sentencing through various judgments. The Washington Court of Appeals had previously upheld Burton's conviction but remanded for resentencing due to concerns about the potential impact of the trial court's reliance on an exceptional sentence on Burton's eligibility for early release credits. The case highlights the complexities of sentencing procedures and the challenges faced by individuals seeking postconviction relief in the federal system.

Whether the decision in Blakely v. Washington announced a new rule and, if so, whether it applies retroactively on collateral review.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.