October Term 2009 · Docket 08-7621

Does a state time limit block a juvenile from challenging a life sentence?

Florida bars Sullivan from challenging his life sentence because he filed late. Sullivan argues the state limit violates federal rights.

Official caption
Sullivan v. Florida
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Stevenson argued Sullivan was 13 at arrest. He stated Sullivan was convicted of sexual assault. He noted the sentence was life without parole.

    Mr. Makar argued the data supporting Sullivan is unreliable. He contrasted this with the rich literature in death penalty cases.

    Justice Scalia questioned the applicability of Roper to this case. He noted Roper involved a death penalty context.

    Justice Ginsburg raised the two-year statute of limitations. She noted the petition was filed in 2007. She asked if correcting a sentence overtakes the limitation.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Sullivan was 13 when convicted of sexual assault. He received a life sentence without parole. Florida law sets a two-year limit for post-conviction claims. Sullivan filed his claim in 2007. The conviction occurred in 1993. The state argues the time limit applies. Sullivan argues the limit blocks federal rights.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 9, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Sullivan wants the Court to strike down the state time limit. He argues the limit blocks his federal constitutional claim.

Florida wants the Court to uphold the state time limit. It argues the limit bars Sullivan's late claim.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Sullivan argues the state time limit violates federal law. He claims the limit prevents him from challenging his sentence.

Florida argues the state time limit is valid. It claims the limit bars Sullivan's late claim.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if Roper applies to non-death cases. He questioned the relevance of death penalty precedents here.

Justice Alito asked if the state judge decided Roper required the result. He sought clarity on the independent state ground argument.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines when states can block federal claims. It affects all juveniles facing life sentences. It clarifies the power of state time limits. It shapes the balance between state and federal law.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON