Prisoners get appeal boost from high court

Wednesday, April 26, 2000 | 10:53 a.m.

SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled on a case rooted in a North Las Vegas killing, making it easier for state prisoners nationwide to appeal to federal court.

The case focuses on Antonio Slack, who has been in Ely State Prison for 10 years following his conviction for the second-degree murder of 12-year-old Alanna Holmes. Slack, then 19, said the slaying was an accident.

Since then Slack has navigated a complex series of appeals. The Supreme Court picked his case to better define who can appeal to federal court.

The nation's high court ruled in Slack's favor, 7-2. The ruling potentially could affect hundreds of thousands of state prisoners nationwide who argue their state court prosecutions violated some federally protected right.

Slack at one point appealed to a federal court after a state court dismissed his claims. But when Slack got to federal court, he asked the judge if he could return to state court to bring new claims. The judge agreed. Slack later applied to return to federal court.

Now the issue is whether the federal court should hear Slack's case, or whether he has already had his chance.

Two Nevada lawyers argued the case in the Supreme Court in October and again in March. Nevada Chief Deputy Attorney General David Sarnowski said Slack had no rights to tie up the courts any longer. Assistant federal public defender Michael Pescetta argued that Slack never had his day in federal court.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy sent Slack's case back to Nevada courts to determine whether he is entitled to a federal court hearing on the merits of his appeal.

People convicted in state courts traditionally have had such a right. But a series of Supreme Court decisions limited federal court access for state prisoners, and a 1996 federal law further restricted federal judges' second-guessing of state court conclusions.

Kennedy said that even though the restrictive 1996 federal law -- the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act -- applies to Slack's case, his newest federal appeal is legal.

Referring to Slack's federal court odyssey, Kennedy said, "The 1995 petition should not have been dismissed on the grounds that it was second or successive."

He added that Nevada "remains free to impose proper procedural bars to restrict repeated returns to state court for post-conviction proceedings," and that federal judges have authority "to prevent vexatious litigation."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. They said Slack should not be allowed to raise claims not included in his first federal appeal in 1991.

Benjamin Grove, the Sun's Washington reporter, contributed to this story.