Some please explain this US Supreme Court Ruling for me. Is Gonzales going to be executed or is there a stay?

I subscribe to this justia.com website that sends me court ruling all the way from state, to Appellate to US Supreme Court rulings.

Quite a few times I don't understand the legal jargon. This is one of those times.

This case involves writ of habeus corpus & competency of a defendant to articulate his thoughts to his lawyer.

What did the SCOTUS rule in plain langauge?

Here is the case summary: Ryan v. Gonzales

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Docket: 10-930 Opinion Date: January 8, 2013

Judge: Thomas

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Gonzales, an Arizona death row inmate, sought federal habeas relief. Counsel sought a stay, contending that mental incompetence prevented Gonzales from rationally communicating with or assisting counsel, and that 18 U. S. C.3599(a)(2) requires a stay when a petitioner is adjudged incompetent. The district court denied a stay, finding that Gonzales’ claims were record based or resolvable as a matter of law. The Ninth Circuit held that Gonzales had a right to a stay pending a competency determination. Carter, an Ohio death row inmate, initiated federal habeas proceedings but later moved for a competency determination and stay. The district court granted the motion, found Carter incompetent, dismissed his petition without prejudice, and prospectively tolled the statute of limitations. The Sixth Circuit identified a right to competence in 18 U. S. C. 4241 and ordered indefinite stay with respect to claims requiring assistance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Section 3599 does not provide a state prisoner a right to suspension of federal habeas proceedings when he is adjudged incompetent and that Section 4241 does not provide a right to competence during federal habeas proceedings. Review of record-based claims, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), is limited to the record before the state court that heard the case on the merits and extra-record evidence concerning such claims is inadmissible.

http://j.st/6RH