For sentencing fans from SCOTUS today

The Supreme Court is back from a two-week break with a new order list and a per curiam summary reversal that will interest sentencing fans.  Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog details here not only that cert. was granted in three civil cases, but why he views today’s order list as sending “a strong signal that [The Supreme Court] is not ready to confront the question of retroactive application of its decision early this year in Booker v. U.S.”  Lyle explains:

The Court denied review in 11 cases on the issue, including a case, Clark v. U.S. (04-5491), in which it had sought the Solicitor General’s views.  As usual, there was no explanation for any of the denials.  The Solicitor General had argued that Booker should not be applied retroactively, because it failed the “new rule” test of the 1989 decision in Teague v. Lane.

Also, of related note, the order list does not have any Booker GVRs.  These developments lead me to various speculations about the state of the Booker pipeline and the High Court’s interest in “looking back” on Blakely and Booker issues.

Meanwhile, from the capital desk, the summary reversal today is in a death penalty case from the Sixth Circuit, Bradshaw v. Richey, No. 05-101 (S. Ct. Nov. 29, 2005) (available here).  Here is Lyle’s account of that decision (which I may discuss more in a later post):

In a summary decision, without dissent, the Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit had erred in deciding an issue of state law in direct contradiction of an interpretation given that law by the Ohio Supreme Court in the same case.  The issue arose in a murder case in which Kenneth T. Richey was convicted of killing a two-year-old girl by starting a fire that was intended to kill the girl’s mother — Richey’s ex-girlfriend — and her new boyfriend. Richey was convicted on a theory of transferred intent for the death of the child. Her mother and the boyfriend escaped unharmed.