The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Granted: Monday, May 2, 2005
Argument: Wednesday, November 9, 2005
Decision: Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus

Advocates

Catherine Baker Chatman (argued the cause for Petitioner)
Reginald Chavis (Attorneys for Respondent, Counsel of Record)
Peter K. Stris (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

After Reginald Chavis was convicted of murder, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in California court. After the California Court of Appeal denied Chavis' petition, he waited more than three years before appealing the decision to the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition without explanation.

Having exhausted his state-court remedies, Chavis then sought to file a habeas petition in federal court. The district court, however, dismissed Chavis' petition. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act there is a one-year period in which a habeas petition must be filed. Chavis' three-year delay, the court ruled, had exceeded that period, and Chavis' petition was therefore untimely. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, however, holding that Chavis' state-court petition had been "pending" for the entire three years. Because the one-year statute of limitations did not apply to time during which state court petitions were pending, Chavis' petition in federal district court was timely under the AEDPA.

Question

When a state court denies a habeas petition summarily, without explanation, does the time that a defendant spent filing that petition count toward the one-year statute of limitations in federal habeas appeals under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court held that the California Supreme Court's summary denial was not necessarily an indication that the petition was timely under state law. The petition was in fact untimely because the three-year delay could not be considered a "reasonable time," which is the timeliness standard for filing a petition under California law. If the state petition was untimely, it could not be considered "pending" between the time of the lower court's denial and the filing of the state habeas petition. Therefore, the Court held that the three-year filing delay did count towards the AEDPA's one-year limitation, meaning the federal habeas petition was also untimely.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Evans, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)
Voted with the majority
Roberts
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. ___ (2006),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_721/>
(last visited ).