Skip to content
Name: Pace v. DiGuglielmo
Case #: 27-Mar
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 04/27/2005
Subsequent History: x-cite 125 S.Ct. 1807
Summary

For purposes of AEDPA, a state postconviction petition rejected by a state court as untimely is not “properly filed” so as to toll the federal one-year period. Expanding its holding in Artuz v. Bennett (2000) 531 U.S. 4, the majority held that a petition filed after a time limit, which does not fit within any exceptions to that limit, is not properly filed. The dissent pointed out that Artuz had distinguished between “claims” and “applications,” noting that the issue of whether claims contained in an application are procedurally barred under state law is distinct from the issue of whether the application itself is properly filed. According to the dissent, an application is properly filed when it is delivered to and accepted by the appropriate court officer for placement.