Stanley v. Chappell

Petitioner challenged the state court's holding that a retrospective competency determination was feasible and that he was competent at the time of his penalty-phase trial. The district court concluded that exhaustion of state remedies was a prerequisite to its review of petitioner's challenge and the district court stayed and held in abeyance petitioner's challenge pending exhaustion in state court. Petitioner appealed. The court concluded that the stay-and-abeyance order was not an appealable collateral order and was not appealable under Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. as an order that put petitioner "effectively out of court." The court declined to construe the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Stanley v. Chappell" on Justia Law