Opinion ID: 808082
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jimenez v. Quarterman

Text: Applicant next argues that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, his § 2254 application is timely because his conviction did not become final until March 2011, when his 2009 state-court motion to vacate his guilty plea was finally disposed of on appeal. The argument is clearly meritless. Jimenez held “that, where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas relief, his judgment is not yet ‘final’ for purposes of [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(d)(1)(A).” Id. at 121. Applicant, however, has not pointed to anything in the record indicating that he was granted the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal. To the contrary, the -11- Kansas Supreme Court sustained the dismissal of Applicant’s 2009 motion as an abuse of the state’s postconviction remedy under § 60-1507. See Woodward, 248 P.3d at , .