JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA

541US2 Unit: $U44 [05-08-06 20:36:17] PAGES PGT: OPIN
428 OCTOBER TERM, 2003
Syllabus
JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA
certiorari to the sureme court of california
No. 03–6539. Argued March 30, 2004—Decided May 3, 2004
In reversing petitioner’s conviction, the California Court of Appeal held
that he was entitled to relief under California v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d
258, 583 P. 2d 748, and Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, but did not
determine whether his separate evidentiary and prosecutorial miscon-
duct claims would independently support the conviction’s reversal. The
State Supreme Court addressed only the Wheeler/Batson claim in re-
versing and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Held: The case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This Court’s juris-
diction is limited to review of “[f]inal judgments . . . rendered by the
highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.” 28 U. S. C.
§ 1257. The instant case falls outside of the exceptional categories of
cases that can be regarded as “final” under § 1257 despite the ordering
of further proceedings. Because compliance with § 1257 is an essential
prerequisite to this Court’s deciding a case’s merits, the Court has an
obligation to raise any such compliance question on its own. However,
the Court is not always successful in policing this gatekeeping function
without counsel’s aid. Part of the problem here was that the portion of
the State Court of Appeal’s decision certified for publication addressed
the Wheeler/Batson claim, but the unpublished portion addressed peti-
tioner’s evidentiary claims to provide guidance for the trial court on
retrial. Petitioner appended only the opinion’s published portion to his
certiorari petition. Had the full opinion been brought to this Court’s
attention, it might have been more evident that the State Supreme
Court’s decision was not final under § 1257. Attention to whether a
decision is indeed a “[f]inal judgmen[t]” is mandated by this Court’s
Rules and will avoid expenditure of resources of both counsel and the
Court on an abortive proceeding such as this.
Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 30 Cal. 4th 1302, 71 P. 3d 270.
Stephen B. Bedrick, by appointment of the Court, 540 U. S.
1102, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the
briefs was Eric Schnapper.
Seth K. Schalit, Supervising Deputy Attorney General of
California, argued the cause for respondent. With him on
the brief were Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel Me-

541US2 Unit: $U44 [05-08-06 20:36:17] PAGES PGT: OPIN
429 Cite as: 541 U. S. 428 (2004)
Per Curiam
deiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior As-
sistant Attorney General, and Laurence K. Sullivan, Super-
vising Deputy Attorney General.*
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari in this case to review a decision of
the Supreme Court of California interpreting Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986). 540 U. S. 1045 (2003). The
case was briefed and argued, but we now conclude that we
are without jurisdiction in the matter.
The California Supreme Court reversed the California
Court of Appeal’s decision reversing petitioner’s conviction.
30 Cal. 4th 1302, 71 P. 3d 270 (2003). The Court of Appeal
held that petitioner was entitled to relief under People v.
Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258, 583 P. 2d 748 (1978), and Batson v.
Kentucky, supra. 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727 (2001). It also
noted petitioner’s separate evidentiary and prosecutorial
misconduct claims, App. 87, but did not determine whether
those claims would independently support reversal of pe-
titioner’s conviction. The California Supreme Court ad-
dressed only the Wheeler/Batson claim, and, after reversing
on that ground, remanded “for further proceedings consist-
ent with [its] opinion.” 30 Cal. 4th, at 1328, 71 P. 3d, at 287.
Under 28 U. S. C. § 1257, our jurisdiction is limited to re-
view of “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the high-
est court of a State in which a decision could be had.” In
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), we
described four exceptional categories of cases to be regarded
*A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. by Elaine R. Jones, Theodore
M. Shaw, Norman J. Chachkin, Miriam Gohara, Christina A. Swarns,
Steven R. Shapiro, Alan L. Schlosser, David M. Porter, Barbara R. Arn-
wine, Thomas J. Henderson, Michael L. Foreman, Audrey Wiggins, Sarah
Crawford, and Barry Sullivan.
A brief of amicus curiae urging affirmance was filed for the Criminal
Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson.

541US2 Unit: $U44 [05-08-06 20:36:17] PAGES PGT: OPIN
430 JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA
Per Curiam
as “final” on the federal issue despite the ordering of further
proceedings in the lower state courts. In a post-oral-
argument supplemental brief, petitioner argues that the
fourth of these categories fits this case. That category in-
volves situations
“where the federal issue has been finally decided in the
state courts with further proceedings pending in which
the party seeking review here might prevail on the mer-
its on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary
review of the federal issue by this Court, and where
reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be
preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause
of action rather than merely controlling the nature and
character of, or determining the admissibility of evi-
dence in, the state proceedings still to come. In these
circumstances, if a refusal immediately to review the
state-court decision might seriously erode federal policy,
the Court has entertained and decided the federal issue,
which itself has been finally determined by the state
courts for purposes of the state litigation.” Id., at
482–483.
Here, petitioner can make no convincing claim of erosion of
federal policy that is not common to all decisions rejecting a
defendant’s Batson claim. The fourth category therefore
does not apply. See Florida v. Thomas, 532 U. S. 774, 780
(2001). “A contrary conclusion would permit the fourth ex-
ception to swallow the rule.” Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U. S. 619,
622 (1981) (per curiam).
The present case comes closest to fitting in the third Cox
category, but ultimately falls outside of it. That category
involves “those situations where the federal claim has been
finally decided, with further proceedings on the merits in the
state courts to come, but in which later review of the federal
issue cannot be had, whatever the ultimate outcome of the
case.” Cox, supra, at 481. In the event that the California

541US2 Unit: $U44 [05-08-06 20:36:17] PAGES PGT: OPIN
431 Cite as: 541 U. S. 428 (2004)
Per Curiam
Court of Appeal on remand affirms the judgment of convic-
tion, petitioner could once more seek review of his Batson
claim in the Supreme Court of California—albeit unsuccess-
fully—and then seek certiorari on that claim from this Court.
Compliance with the provisions of § 1257 is an essential
prerequisite to our deciding the merits of a case brought here
under that section. It is our obligation to raise any question
of such compliance on our own motion, even though counsel
has not called our attention to it. See, e. g., Mansfield, C. &
L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 384 (1884). But as the
present case illustrates, we are not always successful in po-
licing this gatekeeping function without the aid of counsel.
Part of the problem was that the California Court of Ap-
peal’s decision was certified by that court for partial publica-
tion. It addressed the Wheeler/Batson claim in the pub-
lished portion. 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727 (2001). In the
unpublished portion, the court briefly addressed petitioner’s
evidentiary claims to provide guidance for the trial court on
retrial, and noted that it would not address whether petition-
er’s objections were properly preserved or consider petition-
er’s prosecutorial misconduct claim. App. 58. Petitioner
appended only the published portion of the California Court
of Appeal’s decision to his petition for a writ of certiorari.
This Court’s Rule 14.1(i) instructs petitioners to include,
inter alia, any “relevant opinions . . . entered in the case” in
the appendix to the petition for certiorari. The full opinion
of the California Court of Appeal was not filed in this Court
until the joint appendix to the briefs on the merits was filed.
App. 58–112. Had the full opinion been brought to this
Court’s attention, it might have been more evident to us that
the Supreme Court of California’s decision was not final for
the purposes of § 1257.
A petition for certiorari must demonstrate to this Court
that it has jurisdiction to review the judgment. This
Court’s Rule 14.1(g). And a respondent has a duty to “ad-
dress any perceived misstatement of fact or law in the peti-

541US2 Unit: $U44 [05-08-06 20:36:17] PAGES PGT: OPIN
432 JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA
Per Curiam
tion that bears on what issues properly would be before the
Court if certiorari were granted.” Rule 15.2. Our Rules
also require that each party provide a statement for the basis
of our jurisdiction in its brief on the merits. Rule 24.1(e).
At all stages in this case, both parties represented that our
jurisdiction was proper pursuant to § 1257(a). Pet. for Cert.
1; Brief in Support 1; Brief for Petitioner 1; Brief for
Respondent 1.
It behooves counsel for both petitioner and respondent to
assure themselves that the decision for which review is
sought is indeed a “[f]inal judgmen[t]” under § 1257. Such
attention is mandated by our Rules and will avoid the ex-
penditure of resources of both counsel and of this Court on
an abortive proceeding such as the present one.
We dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.