Circuit split · criminal procedure
Whether AEDPA's one-year habeas limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) is tolled while an application for state postconviction review remains pending, including during the time to seek Supreme Court certiorari review of its denial.
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Jones v. Hulick449 F3D 784
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals · June 1, 2006
“The split in the circuits regarding tolling of the statute while an application for state postconviction review is pending is the stated reason why certio-rari was granted in Lawrence.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
28 U.S.C. § 2244 — Finality of determination
“(a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in section 2255. (b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- On the other side · 10th Cir.Serrano v. Williams383 F.3d 1181
“Williams, 383 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir.2004) (state habeas petition was pending, and the AEDPA limitations period tolled, during the 15 days following New Mexico Supreme Court’s denial of petition for writ of certiorari during which petitioner could have filed motion for rehearing); Nix v.” — Jones v. Hulick, acknowledging the split
- On the other side · 11th Cir.Nix v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr.393 F.3d 1235
“Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 393 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir.2004) (conviction became “final” upon the expiration of the 90-day period for seeking certiorari review with the Supreme Court from the denial of motion to correct his sentence); Lookingbill v.” — Jones v. Hulick, acknowledging the split
- On the other side · 5th Cir.Lookingbill v. Cockrell293 F.3d 256
- Joined by · 7th Cir.Wilson
“We concluded in Wilson that any provision allowing time for a rehearing petition “has no bearing on AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations.” Wilson, at 748.” — Jones v. Hulick, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Statutes:
- 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)
- Doctrines & tests:
- equitable tolling
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.