Maples v. Thomas
| Maples v. Thomas | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 4, 2011 Decided January 18, 2012 | |
| Full case name | Cory S. Maples v. Kim T. Thomas, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections |
| Docket no. | 10-63 |
| Citations | 565 U.S. 266 (more) 132 S. Ct. 912; 181 L. Ed. 2d 807 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Conviction affirmed sub nom. Maples v. State, 758 So.2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte Maples, 758 So.2d 81 (Ala. 1999); denial of petition for postconviction relief affirmer, Ex parte Maples, 885 So.2d 845 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004); petition for habeas corpus relief denied sub nom. Maples v. Campbell, No. 5:03-CV-2399-SLB-PWG (N.D. Ala. September 29, 2006); affirmed sub nom. Maples v. Allen, 586 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 562 U.S. 1286 (2011). |
| Subsequent | On remand, Maples v. Comm'r of Ala. Dep't of Corr., 460 F. App'x 860 (11th Cir. 2012). |
| Holding | |
| Maples has shown the requisite “cause” to excuse his procedural default due to the abandonment of his attorneys during a critical stage of his appeals. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Alito |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court ruling in which the Court ruled 7–2 that Cory R. Maples, who had been convicted of murdering two people and faced a possible death sentence, should get another opportunity in court because his lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell had abandoned him.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the Court's holding, arguing that the procedural default shouldn't be excused.