Circuit split · criminal procedure
Whether the operative date triggering the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4), where a federal sentence rested on a later-vacated state conviction, is the date the state conviction was actually vacated or the date the defendant learned (or with due diligence should have learned) the facts supporting his claim to vacate that conviction
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Johnson v. United States340 F3D 1219
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals · August 5, 2003
“2001) (holding that “the operative date under § 2255(4) is not the date the state conviction was vacated, but rather the date on which the defendant learned, or with due diligence should have learned, the facts supporting his claim to vacate the state conviction”), there is a clear split in the circuits, which at some point should be resolved by Congress or the Supreme Court.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
28 U.S.C. § 2255 — Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
“(a) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. (b) Unless the motion and the files and records …”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.
- Joined by · 1st Cir.Brackett v. United States270 F.3d 60
“Without question, if the rule announced in this decision and in Brackett is consistently applied, in some circuits there will be defendants serving time in federal prison under a federal sentence based upon conviction of a state crime that the state court has authoritatively held the defendant unquestionably did not commit, who would be barred from relief, while in other circuits relief from such imprisonment will be readily available.” — Johnson v. United States, acknowledging the split
- On the other side · 4th Cir.United States v. Gadsen882 F.3d 224
“Gadsen, 882 F.3d 224 , 229 (4th Cir.2003) (holding that “the federal statute of limitations begins running when the state court conviction is conclusively invalidated”); United States v.” — Johnson v. United States, acknowledging the split
- On the other side · D.Conn.United States v. Hoskie144 F.Supp.2d 108
“Hoskie, 144 F.Supp.2d 108 , 111 (D.Conn.2001) (holding that “the one-year statute of limitations starts to run on the date the state convictions are vacated, not an earlier date when the defendant discovered the facts forming the basis for the attack on the state convictions”).” — Johnson v. United States, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
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.