Artuz v. Bennett

Artuz v. Bennett

Argued October 10, 2000
Decided November 7, 2000
Full case name Christopher Artuz, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett
Citations

531 U.S. 4 (more)

531 U.S. 4 (2000)
Prior history On Writ of Certiorari to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Subsequent history Remanded to the District Court
Holding
An application for state postconviction relief containing procedurally barred claims is filed within the meaning of the AEDPA.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Scalia, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
AEDPA (1996)

Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2000. The case concerned whether a habeas corpus petition tolled for time under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 when certain state claims are still pending. The Court held that it did not.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Scalia delivered the unanimous decision for the Court, which held that an application for postconviction relief containing procedurally barred claims is properly filed within the meaning of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Only the specific claims and not the actual filing of the claims could be defaulted under state law, he argued. "An application is 'filed', as that term is commonly understood," Scalia wrote, "when it is delivered to, and accepted by, the appropriate state officer for placement into the official record". In the present case, the Court had not issued a written dismissal, just an oral decision from the bench. That would not count toward the tolling of the habeas claim.

See also

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, February 03, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.