The New York Times The New York Times Washington   
Search:  

Powered by: FindLaw

Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
WHITE v. FLORIDA , 458 U.S. 1301 (1982)

U.S. Supreme Court

WHITE v. FLORIDA , 458 U.S. 1301 (1982)

458 U.S. 1301

William Melvin WHITE
v.
FLORIDA.
No. A-130.

Aug. 13, 1982.

Justice POWELL, Circuit Justice.

William White has requested me as Circuit Justice to stay the judgment and mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida pending filing and disposition of his petition for a writ of certiorari. A state trial court convicted White of first degree murder and sentenced him to death. The Florida Supreme Court upheld both the conviction and sentence. It denied rehearing on July 8, 1982, and stayed the mandate until August 9, 1982, requiring White to seek any further stay from this Court.

In his application for a stay, filed by counsel, White states that he intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari because the judgment affirming his conviction and sentence is "in violation of (the) rights secured by the Constitution of the United States." His application does not suggest any more specific basis for seeking the writ. The only reason ad- [458 U.S. 1301 , 1302]   vanced by White for staying the mandate is that, absent a stay, administrative proceedings culminating in the execution of his sentence will be instituted on August 9. The state has responded, however, that the threat of execution is not imminent. No execution date has been set, and the state does not contemplate that one will be set in the near future.

The standards for granting a stay of mandate pending disposition of a petition for certiorari are well established:

See Karcher v. Daggett, -- U.S. -- ( 1982) (Brennan, J., in chambers); Whalen v. Roe, 423 U.S. 1313 , 1316-17, 165-66 (1975) (Marshall, J., in chambers). Although White's application establishes that he may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future, there is no indication that the harm is imminent. Additionally, White's application does not specify either the issues for which certiorari will be sought or the reasons why review is appropriate. In the absence of such information, I am unable to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would find that this case merits review. Because there is no threat of imminent harm and no basis for determining whether certiorari would be granted, the request for a stay is denied.

Copyright © 2003 FindLaw