Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01041/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01041-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1041

___________

Raymond Johnson, * 

* 

Appellant, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Michael Kemna, * 

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 13, 2006

Filed: June 29, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Raymond Johnson appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed Johnson's petition as

untimely filed, finding that it was filed over one month past the deadline imposed by

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). 

AEDPA requires a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief to file his

federal petition within one year after his state conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). However, this limitations period does not include the time during which

a properly filed application for state post-conviction review is "pending" in state

Appellate Case: 05-1041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2006 Entry ID: 2062527
1

Considering the 19 days that elapsed between when Johnson's state conviction

became final, June 20, 1998, and the date he initiated post-conviction relief

proceedings in state court, July 9, 1998, only 358 days passed between the issuance

of the mandate on June 2, 2003, and his filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

in federal district court on May 5, 2004, thus making his petition timely filed.

-2-

courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The recent decision of this court in Payne v. Kemna,

441 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2006), which both parties agree is controlling in this matter,

instructs that an application for state post-conviction review, under Missouri law, is

pending until the mandate is issued. 441 F.3d at 572. When that date is taken into

consideration, there is no dispute that Johnson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus

was timely filed before the district court.1

 Accordingly, the district court's judgment

dismissing Johnson's habeas petition as untimely is reversed, and this case is

remanded for further proceedings. See 8th Cir. R. 47(b). 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1041 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2006 Entry ID: 2062527