The Supreme Court issued its opinion in the habeas case of Wall v. Kholi today. The opinion, written by Alito, can be found here.
It's a habeas win for petitioner. The Court affirms the lower court's decision that a post-judgment motion to reduce the sentence qualifies as a request for "collateral review" that tolls the one-year statute of limitations.
It's not a surprising result based on what we saw at the argument (see my post here about it).
The opinion was almost unanimous. Scalia concurred and joined the whole opinion except for a footnote. In that footnote, Alito pointed out that an argument could be made that a Rule 35 motion actually could be considered part of the direct appeal since it was the main avenue for challenging a sentence in Rhode Island. Alito said that it didn't need to decide the issue as the result would be the same either way. Scalia essentially stated that the footnote was unnecessary. I think he's got a point, but it kind of seems unnecessary to make an issue out of it.
The Court also issued its opinion in the "1983 case with habeas implications" case of Skinner v. Switzer today. The opinion, written by Ginsburg, can be found here. The majority ruled that a criminal defendant can seek DNA testing through a 1983 action. It was a 6-3 decision, with Thomas writing a dissent, joined by Kennedy and Alito.
I haven't looked too closely at either the majority or dissent. If I get a chance, I'll read them and offer some thoughts.