RESPONDENT: Daniel Siebert
LOCATION: U.S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit
DOCKET NO.: 06-1680
DECIDED BY: Roberts Court (2006-2009)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
CITATION: 552 US 3 (2007)
DECIDED: Nov 05, 2007
GRANTED: Nov 05, 2007
Facts of the case
Daniel Siebert was convicted of the murder of Linda Jarman and sentenced to death by electrocution in 1989. His conviction was confirmed on appeal, and Siebert’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court was denied in 1990. In 1992, Siebert filed a petition for state post-conviction relief that was denied because it was filed after the two-year statute of limitations period. In 2001, Siebert filed a federal writ of habeas corpus that was denied because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) has a one-year statute of limitation for filing a federal writ of habeas corpus. Siebert appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and argued that the statute of limitations should not run while his “properly filed” state post-conviction relief was pending. The appellate court determined that the state statute of limitations was not jurisdictional and the state courts could have granted Siebert’s petition, so his petition for state post-conviction relief was “properly filed” and should have prevented the AEDPA’s statute of limitations from running. The appellate court remanded the case for consideration of the petition on the merits. While that review was pending, the Supreme Court decided Pace v. DiGuglielmo, in which the Court held that a petition for state post-conviction relief that was determined to be untimely did not halt the running of the AEDPA’s statute of limitations. Therefore, the district court again rejected Siebert’s petition. The appellate again remanded by holding that the state statute of limitations in this case was non-jurisdictional, and therefore Pace did not apply.
Is a petition for state post-conviction relief that was determined to be untimely considered “properly filed” under the meaning of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act so that the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus review does not run?