Document: 531 U.S. 4121 S.Ct. 361148 L.Ed.2d 213 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.CHRISTOPHER ARTUZ, SUPERINTENDENT, GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, PETITIONERv.TONY BRUCE BENNETT No. 99-1238. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued October 10, 2000 Decided November 7, ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus A New York trial court orally denied respondent's 1995 motion vacate his state conviction. Subsequently, Federal District dismissed federal habeas petition as untimely, noting it was filed more than one year after effective date Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA). In reversing remanding, Second Circuit concluded 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), which tolls AEDPA's limitations period during time a "properly filed" application for postconviction relief pending, also 1-year grace has allowed filing applications challenging pre-AEDPA convictions; that, absence written order, still pending under §2244(d)(2); properly because complied with rules governing whether an "recognized such" law. It thus rejected petitioner's contention not claims contained were procedurally barred Held: That does render improperly §2244(d)(2). An "filed," term commonly understood, when delivered to, accepted by, appropriate officer placement into official record; its delivery acceptance compliance applicable laws filings, e.g., requirements concerning form document, limits upon delivery, office must lodged, payment fee. By construing application" mean "raising mandatorily barred," petitioner elides difference between "application" "claim." The procedural bars at issue set forth conditions obtaining relief, rather filing. Pp. 4 7.199 F.3d 116, affirmed. Scalia, J., unanimous Court. Opinion Justice Scalia 1 Section 2244(d)(2) Title (1994 ed., Supp. IV) provides "[t]he State post-conviction collateral review respect pertinent judgment claim shall counted toward limitation this subsection." case presents question containing within meaning provision. 2 * After 1984 jury York, Queens County, respondent convicted attempted murder, criminal possession weapon, reckless endangerment, stolen property, unauthorized use motor vehicle. Appellate Division affirmed, Appeals leave appeal. unsuccessfully pursuing 1991, moved pro se On 30, 1995, oral decision on no reasons given. Respondent never have received copy reflecting denial, despite several requests. 3 February 1998, writ corpus Eastern alleging, inter alia, court's refusal allow defense witness testify deprived him right fair present witnesses own defense, from pretrial hearing violated due process, counsel constitutionally ineffective failing object allegedly improper remarks by prosecutor summation. summarily had been nine months (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214. reversed remanded. 199 116 (1999). panel first IV), prisoners, should toll (commencing April 24, 1996), convictions. See Ross v. Artuz, 150 97, 98 (CA2 1998). assumed, purposes appeal, yet denying Since could appeal denial absent such order; since, panel's view, "a state-court 'pending' until finally disposed further appellate unavailable particular state's procedures," F.3d, 120; "pending" Finally (and sole point we granted certiorari), held §2244(d)(2) those "governing" "an [is] recognized Id., 123. two law: bar against raising "previously determined merits judgment," N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law §440.10(2)(a) (McKinney 1994), available direct but raised defendant's "unjustifiable failure," §440.10(2)(c).1 We certiorari. 529 1065 (2000). II 5 Petitioner contends here, he did below, unless complies all mandatory state-law would application. disagree. 6 record. See, Lombardo, 241 73, 76 (1916) ("A paper proper filed"); Black's Dictionary 642 (7th ed. 1999) (defining "file" "[t]o deliver legal document clerk record custodian record"). And filings. These usually prescribe, example, delivery,2 requisite Habteselassie Novak, 209 1208, 1210 1211 (CA10 2000); 121 (case below); Villegas Johnson, 184 467, 469 470 (CA5 1999); Lovasz Vaughn, 134 146, 148 (CA3 some jurisdictions include, preconditions imposed abusive filers, cf. Martin Columbia Appeals, 506 (1992) (per curiam), filers generally, 2253(c) (conditioning taking issuance "certificate appealability"). But common usage, quite separate meritorious free bar. 7 interpretation statutory phrase renders word "properly," possibly both words ("properly filed"), surplusage, since if provision omitted words, tolled simply a[n] [relief] pending," necessarily condition tolling sort described above. so. If, erroneously lacking jurisdiction, without fee, will filed. 8 Petitioner's flawed fundamental reason. "application Only individual claims, can defaulted law pursuant our holdings Coleman Thompson, 501 722 (1991), Wainwright Sykes, 433 72 (1977), establish relies. Compare §2244(b)(1) presented second successive section 2254 prior dismissed") §2244(b)(3)(A) ("Before permitted district court, applicant move appeals authorizing consider (emphases added)). O'Sullivan Boerckel, 526 838, 839 840 (1999) ("In case, asked decide prisoner supreme discretionary satisfy exhaustion requirement" Ignoring distinction require judges engage verbal gymnastics contains not. Presumably say nonbarred rest. statute, however, refers only contain peculiar suggestion single filed." Ordinary English refer certain having raised, irrespective 9 remaining arguments beside point. He argues, raise nothing enable remedies counters view trigger flood protective filings courts, absorbing their resources threshold interpretations rules. Whatever these policy have, province rewrite statute accommodate them. hold do seems us permissible text may, know, slighted concerns side part legislative compromise enabled enacted. III 10 §§440.10(2)(a) (c) 1994) prescribe rule confronted judgment" conviction not: "[T]he deny" relief. Neither purports filing, opposed Motions violate provisions successful, they so long met. Consequently, alleged failure comply "[im]properly therefore 11 ordered. Notes cited read full follows: "Notwithstanding subdivision [which sets various grounds earlier judgment], deny when: "(a) ground previously judgment, determination there retroactively change controlling issue; . "(c) Although sufficient facts appear proceedings underlying permitted, adequate motion, occurred owing unjustifiable take perfect prescribed actually perfected him; ." 1994). express existence exceptions timely requirement prevent late being considered Smith Ward, 383, 385 2000).

Category: 0