Pace v. DiGuglielmo
- Decided
- April 27, 2005
- Docket
- 03-9627
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,510 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds (not yet verified) · Griffin v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego
What later courts said
- holding that untimely state postconviction motions are not considered “properly filed” for purposes of AEDPA — Simms v. Acevedo (2010)
- holding that a PCRA petition found to be not timely was not “properly filed” so as to trigger AEDPA’s statutory toll — Harris v. Beard (2005)
- holding that an untimely filed Pennsylvania PCRA petition was not a “properly filed application” under AEDPA — Ferrara v. Mason (2021)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*410] CHIEF Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
The federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) establishes a 1-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas corpus petition. 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1). That limitations period is tolled, however, while “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” § 2244(d)(2). This case requires us to decide whether a state postconviction petition rejected by the state court as untimely nonetheless is “properly filed” within the meaning of § 2244(d)(2). We conclude that it is not, and hold that petitioner John Pace’s federal petition is time barred.
In February 1986, petitioner pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime in a Pennsylvania state court. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Petitioner did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and he did not file a direct appeal. In August 1986, he filed a petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §9541 et seq. (1988) (amended and renamed by Act No. 1988-47, §§ 3, 6,1988 Pa. Laws pp. 337-342). These proceedings concluded in September 1992, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied petitioner’s untimely request for discretionary review.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.