|
|
Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000)
Artuz v. Bennett No. 99-1238 Argued October 10, 2000 Decided November 7, 2000 531 U.S. 4
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
A New York trial court orally denied respondent’s 1995 motion to vacate his state conviction. Subsequently, the Federal District Court dismissed respondent’s federal habeas petition as untimely, noting that it was filed more than one year after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In reversing and remanding, the Second Circuit concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), which tolls AEDPA’s limitations period during the time that a "properly filed" application for state postconviction relief is pending, also tolls the 1-year grace period which the Circuit has allowed for the filing of applications challenging pre-AEDPA convictions; that, in the absence of a written order, respondent’s 1995 motion was still pending under § 2244(d)(2); and that the 1995 motion was properly filed because it complied with rules governing whether an application for state postconviction relief is "recognized as such" under state law. It thus rejected petitioner’s contention that the 1995 application was not properly filed because the claims it contained were procedurally barred under New York law.
Held: that respondent’s application for state postconviction relief contained procedurally barred claims does not render it improperly filed under § 2244(d)(2). An application is "filed," as that term is commonly understood, when it is delivered to, and accepted by, the appropriate court officer for placement into the official record; and it is "properly filed" when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings, e.g., requirements concerning the form of the document, applicable time limits upon its delivery, the court and office in which it must be lodged, and payment of a filing fee. By construing "properly filed application" to mean application "raising claims that are not mandatorily procedurally barred," petitioner elides the difference between an "application" and a "claim." The state procedural bars at issue set forth conditions to obtaining relief, rather than conditions to filing. Pp. 8-11.
199 F.3d 116, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000) in 531 U.S. 4 531 U.S. 5. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JWX63RTZNPVSDHE.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000), in 531 U.S. 4, page 531 U.S. 5. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JWX63RTZNPVSDHE.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000). cited in 2000, 531 U.S. 4, pp.531 U.S. 5. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JWX63RTZNPVSDHE.
|