Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Pace v. DiGuglielmo

Docket No.: 03-9627
Certiorari Granted: Sep 28 2004
Argued: February 28, 2005
Decided: April 27, 2005

Topics:

28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus), Judicial Power, Article I, Civil Procedure, Death Penalty, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, court appointed counsel, habeas, habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial review, life-without-parole, murder, patent, res judicata, untimely filing

PartyNames: John A. Pace v. David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.
Petitioner: John A. Pace
Respondent: David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Citation: 71 FedAppx 127
Supreme Court Docket

John A. Pace
v.
David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.
544 U.S. 408 (2005)
Question Presented:

1. Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeal regarding an important question that this Court explicitly reserved in Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000) - whether an untimely state post-conviction petition may be "properly filed" under ยง 2244(d)(2)? 2. Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeal regarding whether Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) answered the question about "properly filed" that Artuz reserved? 3. Should this Court grant the writ to answer the question about "properly filed" which was reserved by Artuz and which the Third Circuit decided erroneously? 4. Should this Court grant the writ and review the Third Circuit's denial of equitable tolling, where the Third Circuit denies all federal habeas review to petitioners who act appropriately, reasonably and diligently, and as demanded by the exhaustion requirement, in seeking state court remedies?

Question:

If a state court rejected Pace's post-conviction appeal as untimely, could his federal habeas petition still be "properly filed" within the context of the federal law establishing a one-year statute of limitations for such petitions?

Pace v. DiGuglielmo
ORAL ARGUMENT

February 28, 2005

Holding: affirmed
Decision: Decision: 5 votes for DiGuglielmo, 4 vote(s) against
Vote: 5-4
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)