Background
Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr., a death row inmate in Idaho, sought clemency from the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole. The Commission recommended commuting his death sentences to life without parole, but Governor Brad Little rejected the recommendation. Pizzuto challenged this in state court, arguing the Governor lacked authority to overrule the Commission. The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the Governor’s authority under state law. Pizzuto then filed a federal habeas petition claiming a federal due process violation, which the district court denied.
The court’s reasoning
The panel first established jurisdiction, ruling that the district court’s issuance of a certificate of appealability secured appellate jurisdiction despite any defects in the certificate’s reasoning. The court held that the Idaho Supreme Court’s summary denial of rehearing was an adjudication on the merits, triggering deferential review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The panel concluded that Pizzuto’s claim was not cognizable because it was a challenge to the interpretation of state law. Even assuming the claim was cognizable, the court found no federal due process violation, as the state court’s decision was not arbitrary and the Governor’s rejection of the clemency recommendation complied with state law.
Pizzuto cannot avoid the presumption that the Idaho Supreme Court adjudicated his federal claim on the merits.
PIZZUTO V. VALLEY, slip op. at 14
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that federal habeas courts will defer to state supreme court summary denials of rehearing and will not entertain claims that are essentially challenges to state law interpretations disguised as federal due process violations.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download