## Facts

- Warren Wesley Summerlin was convicted of first-degree murder in Arizona.
- Under Arizona’s then-operative capital scheme, the jury determined guilt, but the trial judge determined whether aggravating circumstances existed and imposed a death sentence.
- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence on direct review, making the judgment final.
- While Summerlin’s federal habeas petition was pending, the Supreme Court decided *Ring v. Arizona*, requiring that aggravating facts necessary for a death sentence be found by a jury rather than a judge.
- The Ninth Circuit granted habeas relief, holding *Ring* applied retroactively to Summerlin’s final case.
- The State sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether *Ring v. Arizona* applies retroactively on federal habeas to cases already final on direct review.
2. Whether *Ring* announced a substantive rule or a procedural rule under *Teague v. Lane*.
3. If procedural, whether *Ring* qualifies as a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure requiring retroactive application.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that *Ring* announced a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to cases final on direct review.
- The Court classified *Ring* as procedural because it changed who decides the aggravating facts (jury instead of judge), not the conduct or class of offenders subject to capital punishment.
- The Court rejected the claim that *Ring* is a watershed rule, concluding it could not say judicial factfinding seriously diminishes accuracy relative to jury factfinding.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Teague v. Lane*, new rules generally do not apply retroactively to cases final on direct review in federal habeas proceedings.
- New substantive rules apply retroactively, including rules that narrow the scope of criminal liability or place certain conduct or persons beyond the State’s power to punish.
- New procedural rules apply retroactively only if they are rare “watershed” rules essential to fundamental fairness and to accuracy, meaning the likelihood of an accurate result is seriously diminished without them.
- A rule reallocating factfinding responsibility from judge to jury in capital sentencing is procedural, not substantive, when it changes the method for determining eligibility for a sentence rather than the permissible punishment for the conduct.

## Conclusion

The Court held that *Ring*’s requirement that a jury, not a judge, find aggravating facts necessary for a death sentence is a new procedural rule and not retroactive on federal habeas to convictions and sentences already final on direct review, leaving Summerlin’s death sentence intact absent other grounds for relief.


Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004)