TIM SHOOP, WARDEN v. DANNY HILL
Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, January 7, 2019,
AEDPA – Death Penalty – The Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas should not be applied to review of a State post-conviction concluded in 2006.

Facts:
Hill was sentenced to death in 1986 and his conviction/sentence was affirmed.
In 2002, the Supreme Court held that imposing the death penalty on “mentally retarded” persons violates the Eight Amendment.
After this, Hill filed a post-conviction in Ohio courts, arguing that he was mentally deficient and thus not eligible for the death penalty.
In 2010 Hill filed a federal post-conviction, seeking review of Ohio’s denial of his post-conviction. This was denied and Hill appealed.
In 2017, the Supreme Court set out factors for determining mental retardation in Moore v. Texas.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit applied Moore in deciding that the Ohio courts mis-applied Supreme Court precedent.
The government requested review from the Supreme Court, arguing that Ohio courts couldn’t have mis-applied a Supreme Court case that didn’t exist yet.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the 6th Circuit inappropriately applied Supreme Court precedent retroactively to a State habeas review.

AEDPA – Habeas relief for a State conviction may be granted only if the state court’s adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,” Supreme Court precedent that was “clearly established” at the time of the adjudication (or if there was an unreasonable determination of facts).

From the Case: “In this case, no reader of the decision of the Court of Appeals can escape the conclusion that it is heavily based on Moore, which came years after the decisions of the Ohio courts… Because the reasoning of the Court of Appeals leans so heavily on Moore, its decision must be vacated.”