Ring v. Arizona
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
4,558 later cases cite Ring v. Arizona; 442 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Ring v. Arizona?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
Ring does not apply on collateral attack to a death sentence that became final before Ring.
Szabo v. Walls · Seventh Circuit · filed
Given Teague, it is Walton and not Ring that governs Szabo’s claims on collateral attack.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring was unavailable on collateral review because the Supreme Court had not made it retroactive.
Carey D. Moore v. Michael L. Kinney, Warden of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Eighth Circuit · filed
Absent an express pronouncement on retroactivity from the Supreme Court, the rule from Ring is not retroactive.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring announced a procedural rule that does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
State v. Lotter · Nebraska Supreme Court · filed
Therefore, we decline to apply Ring to the final judgments which are before us ... for collateral review in this postconviction appeal and deny Lotter’s motions filed in this court requesting that we vacate his death sentences.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that Ring announced a procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.
Schriro v. Summerlin · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Ring announced a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. The contrary judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring does not apply retroactively to death sentences final on direct review.
Berry v. State · Mississippi Supreme Court · filed
We agree. The Supreme Court has recently held that Ring announces a procedural rule and does not apply retroactively to death penalty cases already final on direct review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring does not apply retroactively to death cases already final on direct review.
Mitchell v. State · Supreme Court of Mississippi · filed
The retroactive application of Ring was recently rejected in Schriro v. Summerlin ... where the Supreme Court held that the holding in Ring was procedural and therefore did not apply retroactively to death penalty cases already final on direct review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring does not apply retroactively on habeas review and therefore could not support the petitioner’s jury-sentencing claim.
Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr. v. A.J. Arave, Warden · Ninth Circuit · filed
Ring is not retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring does not apply retroactively, so it could not govern the already-final case.
Bell v. Cone · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Ring does not apply retroactively, Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 358 (2004), this case does not present the question whether an appellate court may, consistently with Ring, cure the finding of a vague aggravating circumstance by applying a narrower construction.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring does not apply retroactively in Florida to convictions already final when Ring was decided.
Johnson v. State · Florida Supreme Court · filed
We hold that Ring does not apply retroactively in Florida to defendants whose convictions already were final when that decision was rendered.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Summerlin foreclosed application of Ring to the habeas petitioner’s already-final sentence.
Charles Jess Palmer v. Harold W. Clarke · Eighth Circuit · filed
Palmer’s claim that, under Ring v. Arizona, he was entitled to have the facts at his sentencing hearing proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Schriro v. Summerlin, 124 S. Ct. 2519, 2526 (2004), that Ring does not apply retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring is not applied retroactively in Florida postconviction proceedings.
Marshall v. Crosby · Florida Supreme Court · filed
Finally, we have recently held in Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2005) that we will not apply Ring retroactively in postconviction cases even assuming it affected Florida law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring is not retroactive in Florida postconviction proceedings.
Foster v. State · Florida Supreme Court · filed
Moreover, we have recently held that Ring is not retroactive. See Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 409 (Fla.2005).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Ring does not apply retroactively in collateral proceedings.
Hall v. State · Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
However, the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey . . . and Ring v. Arizona . . . do not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court declined to extend Ring's jury-and-proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt rule for aggravating facts to the jury's ultimate weighing of aggravating against mitigating factors.
United States v. Caro · W.D. Virginia · filed
In short, while the Court held in Ring that its Apprendi decision requires that aggravating factors be presented to the jury and be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court never addressed whether a prosecutor must prove that the aggravating factors sufficiently outweigh any mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Washington Supreme Court declined to extend Ring's treatment of aggravators as offense elements under the Sixth Amendment to an implied-acquittal theory under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
State v. Benn · Supreme Court of Washington · filed
Despite Ring's elevation of aggravating factors to the equivalent status of elements under the Sixth Amendment, Poland's holding remains good law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas appellate court declined to extend Ring into a constitutional requirement that the same jury decide both guilt and punishment.
Erazo v. State · Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District · filed
But, he requests that we extend this ruling and recognize not only a blanket constitutional right to jury assessment of punishment for a felony conviction, but also a constitutional right to have the same jury decide guilt and punishment. However, appellant offers no logical support for this leap. We decline to acknowledge constitutional rights that our Court of Criminal Appeals and sister courts have refused to recognize.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Supreme Court declined to extend Ring to require penalty-phase findings beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravation outweighs mitigation or that death is appropriate.
People v. Parson · Supreme Court of California · filed
The jury need not agree unanimously as to aggravating factors, or make specific findings or find beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating factors exist (except for other unadjudicated violent criminal activity), that such factors outweigh mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate punishment. ... Nothing in ... Ring v. Arizona ... casts doubt on these conclusions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court held Ring unavailable retroactively to a capital case already final on direct review and denied habeas relief under Schriro v. Summerlin.
Gallegos v. Schriro · District of Arizona · filed
In Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004), however, the Court held that Ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. Because direct review of Petitioner’s case was final prior to Ring, he is not entitled to federal habeas relief premised on that ruling.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Louisiana appellate court declined to extend Ring's jury factfinding rule to require unanimous jury verdicts.
State v. Daigle · Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · filed
These Supreme Court decisions do not address the issue of the constitutionality of a non-unanimous jury verdict; rather, they address the issue of whether the assessment of facts in determining an increased penalty of a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum is within the province of the jury or the trial judge, sitting alone. Nothing in these decisions suggests that the jury's verdict must be unanimous for a defendant's conviction to be constitutional.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held Ring applies only to cases on direct review under Schriro v. Summerlin and therefore could not support this collateral attack.
Beaty v. Schriro · Ninth Circuit · filed
Walton itself was overruled in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). However, Ring is only applicable to cases on direct review. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Supreme Court declined to extend Ring to require penalty-phase proof beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors or that death is appropriate.
People v. Butler · Supreme Court of California · filed
First, defendant challenges the denial of a proposed instruction that would have conditioned a death sentence on jury findings, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, and that death was the appropriate punishment. ... Defendant recognizes that we have rejected the claim that CALJIC No. 8.88 must include these requirements, but asks us to reconsider our view in light of ... Ring v. Arizona ... However, “Nothing in ... Ring ... casts doubt on these conclusions.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court held Ring unavailable retroactively to a capital case already final on direct review under Schriro v. Summerlin.
Poyson v. Ryan · District of Arizona · filed
However, in Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004), the Court ruled that Ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. Because direct review of Petitioner’s case was final prior to Ring, he is not entitled to federal habeas relief premised on that ruling.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Arizona Supreme Court reaffirmed that a capital case final before Ring did not require remand for jury resentencing under Ring, making Ring unavailable retroactively to that final case.
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund · Supreme Court of Arizona · filed
We disagree and reaffirm the scope of review and our holding in Styers. Id. at 187 ¶ 5 (holding that a “case is final when ‘a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and . . . a petition for certiorari finally denied,’” and therefore does not need to be remanded for a new resentencing proceeding under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (citation omitted)).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals held that Ring announced a procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to cases final on direct review and that Ring does not require retrospective application on collateral review.
Harold Wayne Nichols v. State of Tennessee · Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
The United States Supreme Court has previously held that its decision in Ring “announced a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to cases already final under direct review,” Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358 (2004) (emphasis added), even though it too overruled a pre-Apprendi case. See Ring, 536 U.S. at 603 (overruling Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990)). Moreover, this Court has held that neither Ring nor Apprendi required retrospective application to cases on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that Ring does not apply retroactively on collateral review to a capital case that became final before Ring and that later appellate reweighing did not reopen direct review.
McKinney v. Arizona · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
But McKinney’s case became final on direct review long before Ring and Hurst, which do not apply retroactively on collateral review, see Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 358, and the Arizona Supreme Court’s 2018 decision reweighing the aggravators and mitigators did not constitute a reopening of direct review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held that Ring does not apply retroactively to a capital sentence that became final before Ring.
Murray Hooper v. David Shinn · Ninth Circuit · filed
At the time of Hooper’s sentencing, Arizona law required the trial judge (rather than a jury) to determine the existence of aggravating circumstances. See A.R.S. § 13-703(B). The Supreme Court later held that this process is unconstitutional in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609 (2002). But Ring does not apply retroactively. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358 (2004).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held that Ring’s Sixth Amendment rule does not apply retroactively to death sentences final before Ring.
Creech v. Richardson · Ninth Circuit · filed
The Sixth Amendment rule of Ring does not apply retroactively to sentences, like Creech’s, that were final on direct review before Ring was decided. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358 (2004).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ring v. Arizona and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace