Mike Evans, Acting Warden v. Reginald Chavis (546 U.S. 189)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 10, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 546 U.S. 189 · 126 S. Ct. 846
- Decided
- January 10, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA or Act) requires a state prisoner whose conviction has become final to seek federal habeas corpus relief within one year. 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The Act tolls this 1-year limitations period for the “time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review ... is pending.” § 2244(d)(2). The time that an application for state postconviction review is “pending” includes the period between (1) a lower court’s adverse determination, and (2) the prisoner’s filing of a notice of appeal, provided that the filing of the notice of appeal is timely under state law. Carey v. Saffold, 536 U. S. 214 (2002). In most States a statute sets out the number of days for filing a timely notice of appeal, typically a matter of a few days. See id., at 219. California, however, has a special system governing appeals when prisoners seek relief on collateral review. Under that system, the equivalent of a notice of appeal is timely if filed within a “reasonable time.” In re Harris, 5 Cal. 4th 813, 828, n. 7, 855 P. 2d 391, 398, n. 7 (1993); see also Saffold, supra, at 221. In this case, the Ninth Circuit found timely a California prisoner’s request for appellate review made three years after the lower state court ruled against him. Chavis v.…
Excerpt of a 20,145-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.