Ramdass v. Angelone

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief, holding that the capital sentencing jury was not constitutionally entitled to a parole-ineligibility instruction because petitioner was not conclusively parole ineligible under Virginia law when the jury deliberated. The unentered judgment on a separate robbery verdict meant that the third strike required for parole ineligibility had not yet been established, and the state court’s application of the governing federal rule was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Justice Stevens, dissenting, would have held that petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to rebut the State’s future-dangerousness case, while Justice O’Connor, concurring in the judgment, agreed that the state court’s decision satisfied the deferential habeas standard.