Discretionary review (state supreme court)
You have not marked these earlier steps complete: Direct appeal. This remedy is normally available only after them. Confirm you have exhausted the lower rungs (or that an exception applies) before relying on this one.
What this is
After an intermediate appellate court rules, you ask the state’s highest court to review it. In most states this is DISCRETIONARY — the court chooses whether to take the case (a petition for review / petition for discretionary review), it is not an appeal of right.
Where it sits in the ladder
This rung matters for two reasons: it can win, and it is the last state step. To exhaust a federal claim you generally must have asked the state’s court of last resort to hear it — even if it said no.
What "burning" this option means
If you never sought discretionary review in the state’s highest court, a federal court may hold the claim unexhausted or defaulted. This step is often what "one full round of state review" means.
Who the respondents are
On appeal the other side (the appellee/respondent) is whoever won below — in a criminal case, "the People"/"the State"/"the United States," represented by the prosecutor or your state Attorney General. Serve every party per the certificate of service.
Deadlines that can end the option
Generate: Petition (review / post-conviction / writ) — required fields
This is a fill-in-the-blank scaffold of the sections your document needs. It is AI-generated structure, not a completed filing and not legal advice — fill each field with your own case’s facts, or take it to an attorney or your court’s self-help center.
Format & length rules
- U.S. Supreme Court certiorari petition: booklet format, 9,000-word limit, 40-day/90-day timing
Sup. Ct. R. 14, 33; deadline Sup. Ct. R. 13 - State petition-for-review and post-conviction forms/limits VARY — many states publish a required form; check your state’s rules — varies by state; confirm in your state’s rules
Governing statutes
Cases on point (live · CourtListener)
STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Vermont Unit Docket No. 54-5-15 Vtec Pintair Discretionary Permit (Sewer) ENTRY REGARDING MOTION Title: Motion to Dismiss (Motion 1) Filer: Town of Williston Attorney: Paul S. Gillies Filed Date: May 20, 2015 Response in opposition
Yeary, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Slaughter, J., joined. I dissent to the Court's failure to grant discretionary review in this case. It represents another incarnation of an issue I have been urging the Court to tackle for some time now, to no avail. The Third Court of Appeals held that the use of a prior felony conviction to enhance Appellant's sentence was improper because part of the evidence the State offered to es
Hervey, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Walker, J., joined. I concur in the majority's disposition, but I write separately to address an issue which continues to deserve attention. A defendant cannot be convicted upon the testimony of only an accomplice unless that testimony is "corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed ...." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ar
Supreme Court No. 2023-349-Appeal. (WC 23-179) Noah Gabriel : v. : Jeffrey M. Willis et al. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit
Edmunds, J. recused
FILED Jul 13 2023, 9:00 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals
PER CURIAM. ¶ 1 Daniel J. White appeals from a circuit court order affirming an order of the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) holding that White's employer, Sevenson Environmental Service, did not unreasonably refuse to rehire him because White abandoned his job. Because credible and substantial evidence supports LIRC's conclusion, we affirm. ¶ 2 White is an Operating Engineers 139 Union member who resides
Newell, J ., filed a concurring opinion in which Johnson, J., joined. I agree with this Court’s decision not to grant discretionary review of the unpublished opinion in this case. I write separately because I believe the court of appeals properly answered the question before it and because I do not believe this is the case to determine whether a particular type of roadway requires a “
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA, November 14, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A25D0108. DANIEL FUSCO v. SEXUAL OFFENDER RISK REVIEW BOARD. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-1230-14 CHAD WILLIAM MURRAY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS HILL COUNTY H ERVEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which K EL
COCHRAN, J., filed a statement concurring in the refusal of the petition in which JOHNSON and HERVEY, JJ., joined. I agree with the Court’s decision to refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review because I believe that the error in this case-the trial judge’s display of a Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) plaque in the courtroom during appellant’s DWI trial-was neither inherently prejudicial nor a
PER CURIAM. ¶ 1 The Labor and Industry Review Commission appeals from an order of the circuit court that set aside the Commission's decision-that Theresa L. Payton-Myrick was not entitled to further worker's compensation and disability payments-and remanded the matter to the Commission for further fact-finding. The Commission argues that the circuit court erred in considering Payton-Myrick's argument that her claim was governed by W
Davis, J. recused
Appellant was indicted for aggravated sexual assault but was convicted of the lesser offense of aggravated assault by causing bodily injury. The record reveals neither a request by appellant for, nor an objection by appellant to, the submission of the lesser offense. The court of appeals found that the submission of the lesser offense was error because aggravated assault by causing bodily injury was not in fact a lesser-included offense of aggravated
[J-114-2016] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. GARY H. POWELL : No. 38 MAP 2016 : : Appeal from the Order of the v. : Commonwealth Court at No. 1704 CD
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JASMINE WEDDINGTON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. N24A-04-004 CLS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) APPEAL BOARD ) ) Appellees. )
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 22, 2022 Decided December 23, 2022 No. 21-1182 CHRISTOPHER GARVEY, PETITIONER v. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, RESPONDENT MORGAN STANLEY, INTERVENOR On
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NAYA-MONET SEMBE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N24A-07-003 KMV ) UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) APPEAL BOARD, ) ) Appellee.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JALISA WHITE ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N23A-08-004 PAW ) UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) APPEAL BOARD ) ) Appellee. )
Walker, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Hervey, J., joined. Appellant Melik Ralah Smith was convicted of murder and sentenced to ninety-nine years imprisonment. At trial, he sought to have three doctors give testimony about his mental illness, which was excluded by the trial court. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court's exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. Appellant now seeks discretionary review