Document: 128 S. Ct. 2 (2007) Richard F. ALLEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, v. Daniel SIEBERT. No. 06-1680. Supreme Court United States. November 5, 2007. PER CURIAM. Siebert was convicted and sentenced to death in the State for murder Linda Jarman. Siebert's conviction sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, certificate judgment issued May 22, 1990. This denied certiorari Alabama, 498 U.S. 963, 111 398, 112 L. Ed. 2d 408. On August 25, 1992, filed a petition postconviction relief state court. The courts *3 as untimely, however, because it approximately three months after expiration then-applicable 2-year statute limitations, Ala. Rule Crim. Proc. 32.2(c) (2000-2001), which began run from date issued.[*] September 15, 2000. did not seek review this Court. 14, 2001, federal writ habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, District Northern Alabama. Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) established 1-year limitations filing petition. 2244(d)(1). period is tolled, while "a properly application post-conviction or other collateral with respect pertinent claim pending." 2244(d)(2). Because appeal became final before AEDPA effective, April 24, 1996, AEDPA's effective date. See Carey Saffold, 536 214, 217, 122 2134, 153 260 (2002). Thus, absent tolling, would be untimely by over four years. dismissed reasoning that an "properly filed" if rejected court statute-of-limitations grounds. Appeals reversed, holding within meaning 2244(d)(2), time bar jurisdictional therefore had discretion enforcing it. Campbell, 334 F.3d 1018, 1030 (C.A.11 2003) (per curiam). accordingly remanded consider merits While pending remand Court, we decided Pace DiGuglielmo, 544 408, 125 1807, 161 669 (2005). In Pace, held Id., at 414, 417, 1807. Relying again found filed," his untimely. Appeals, reversed remanded. one-paragraph opinion, distinguished ground 32.2(c), unlike issue "operate[s] affirmative defense." 480 1089, 1090 2007). its prior holdingthat nonjurisdictional groundstood law case. Ibid. Appeals' carve-out limits operate defenses inconsistent our Pace. Although Pennsylvania happens have been under law, Commonwealth Banks, *4 556 Pa. 1, 5-6, 726 A.2d 374, 376 (1999), nature limit basis decision. Rather, built upon distinction earlier articulated Artuz Bennett, 531 4, 121 361, 148 213 (2000), between petitions "`filing' conditions," are those "procedural bars [that] go ability obtain relief," are. supra, 1807 (citing Artuz, 10-11, 361). We statutes "filing" conditions they "go very initiation court's petition." U.S., "that limits, no matter their form, `filing' (emphasis added). short, turned particular relied court, but rather fact generally establish "conditions filing" relief. Whether jurisdictional, defense, something between, "condition filing," 9, 361it places how long prisoner can wait Alabama's defense waived (or subject equitable tolling) renders less requirement than be; only makes stringent one. Indeed, cited case example such requirement. n. 7, (2004-2005)). Excluding Pace's scope leave gaping hole what plainly meant general rule, often defenses. See, e.g., Fed. Civ. 8(c); Kirkland State, 143 Idaho 544, 546, 149 P.3d 819, 821 (2006) ("The jurisdictional. It `is may pleaded defendant'" (quoting Cole 135 107, 110, 15 820, 823 (2000); citation omitted)); People Boclair, 202 Ill. 89, 101, 273 Dec. 560, 789 N.E.2d 734, 742 (2002) (holding "an raised, waived, forfeited, State"). What more, whether disputed question, interpretive history itself illustrates, Ex parte Ward, 1051818, 2007 WL 1576054, *6 (Ala., June 2007) (noting confusion lower jurisdictional). Under approach, delve into intricacies procedural deciding nonetheless Our decision precludes approach. reiterate now Pace: "When `that [is] end matter' purposes 2244(d)(2)." Carey, 226, 2134; alteration original). courts, Accordingly, he *5 entitled tolling limitations. granted. further proceedings consistent opinion. so ordered. Justice STEVENS, whom GINSBURG joins, dissenting. There obvious petition, create waived. Compare majority dissenting opinions John R. Sand & Gravel Co. States, 457 1345 (C.A.Fed. 2006), cert. granted, 550 ___, 127 2877, 167 1151 (2007). consideration (2005), former kindas Court's opinion expressly noted. id., (discussing "time petition"). latter, distinguishable correctly stated. address statutory operated defense"). true there language broad enough cover both kinds provisions, (those do defenses) even arguably provide reasonable concluding has 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA).[*] I respectfully dissent. NOTES [*] At provided "the shall entertain any petition," certain exceptions applicable here, "unless ... two (2) years issuance Criminal Appeals." since amended period, otherwise unchanged. 1 (2007-2008). continue believe, stated my dissent 427, timeliness like (for example, require enumerated exceptions) should determine AEDPA. Even accepting summarily reversed.

Category: 8