| Jimenez v. Quarterman | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued November 4, 2008 Decided January 13, 2009 |
||||||
| Full case name | Jimenez v. Quarterman | |||||
| Docket nos. | 07-6984 | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| A state conviction is not "final" for the purpose of filing a federal habeas petition when a state court grants an out-of-time appeal. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Thomas, joined by unanimous Court | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| , Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 | ||||||
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. ___ (2009), was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under , the conviction of a state defendant is not "final" if a state court grants an "out-of-time" appeal and the defendant has not yet filed a federal habeas petition.
Contents |
Carlos Jimenez was convicted of burglary and, due to a prior felony, received an enhanced sentence of forty-three years in prison. Jimenez appealed to the Texas Third Court of Appeals, but through no fault of his own, was unaware that his appeal was denied until after the statute of limitations expired for him to appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In order to remedy this, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Jimenez a reinstated appeal, which essentially tolled the statute of limitations for purposes of direct review in state court. After exhausting all state remedies, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Jimenez’s federal petition for habeas corpus, stating that for purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A), “direct review” ended when he initially failed to timely appeal the decision of the Third Court of Appeals, not when his reinstated appeal was exhausted. The United States Supreme Court will decide whether the reinstated appeal tolled the statute of limitations until the completion of the reinstated direct review for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A).
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held that "the statute requires a federal court, presented with an individual's first petition for habeas relief, to make use of the date on which the entirety of the state direct appellate review process was completed," and that the granting of the right to an out-of-time appeal by the Texas Court of Appeals rendered Jimenez's conviction not final for the purposes of the statute. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case.[1]