Penry v. Texas

Background

A death-row inmate sought a 59-day extension to file a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a Texas criminal-court judgment. Counsel said the record was voluminous, noting a 375-page brief with 132 points of error, the State’s 248-page brief, a 76-page judgment plus concurrences, and that lead counsel would be out of the office the week before the deadline. The request invoked the Court’s rules that normally require filing within 90 days and allow a Justice to extend time up to 60 days for "good cause." Rule 13.6 also warns that extension requests are not favored.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the lawyer’s reasons constituted the required "good cause" (a sufficient reason) to grant the disfavored extension. Justice Scalia evaluated the request against his prior in-chambers decisions and procedures. He noted that counsel had already produced a lengthy brief raising many errors and had sought rehearing below, giving months to study the court’s opinion. He emphasized that many applicants claim they need more time, that counsel’s planned absence should not excuse missed deadlines, and that the single good-cause standard must be applied uniformly. Relying on those points, he concluded the reasons offered fell short and denied the extension.

Real world impact

The denial enforces strict filing schedules in death-penalty review requests and signals that large records or short practitioner absences will not by themselves justify extra time. Justice Scalia also warned that lawyers practicing in the Fifth Circuit should expect a stringent standard for extensions, making similar delay requests less likely to succeed.