Lawrence v. Florida - Opinion Announcement

Argument of Justice Thomas

Mr. Thomas: Second case I have to announce is Lawrence v. Florida, number 05-8820.

This case comes to us on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Petitioner Gary Lawrence was convicted in State Court of first degree murder and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.

364 days passed before Lawrence passed a petition for State postconviction relief which was rejected by the Florida Courts.

After the Florida Supreme Court issued its mandate denying State postconviction relief Lawrence waited another 113 days to file his Federal Habeas petition application.

Despite the Federal Habeas statute’s one year limitation period, Lawrence argues that his Federal Habeas application is timely because he filed a petition for certiorari in this Court seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court’s denial of State postconviction relief.

Specifically Lawrence maintains that his application for a state postconviction review was still pending within the meaning of the Federal Habeas statute until this court denied his certiorari petition.

The District Court rejected petitioner’s argument and held that his habeas application was untimely.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed holding that the certiorari petition was not part of the applications for state postconviction review and that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling of the federal limitations period.

In an opinion filed with the clerk today we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

We hold that an application for a state postconviction review is no longer pending once the State Courts have conclusively spoken on the matter and all that remains as a certiorari petition pending before this Federal Court.

The Federal Habeas statute tolls the statute of limitations during the time when an application for state postconviction or other collateral review is pending.

So, the question is, whether such an application is still pending, when a certiorari petition is filed in this court to review a State Court’s denial of the postconviction relief.

We have previously said that a state postconviction application remains pending until the application has achieved final resolution through the State’s postconviction procedures and today we hold that state review ends when the State Courts have finally resolved an application for state postconviction relief.

After the State’s highest court has issued its mandate or denied review no other state avenues for relief remain open and an application for state post-conviction review no longer exists all that remains is a separate certiorari petition pending before a Federal Court.

Thus, the filing of a petition for certiorari in this court does not toll the limitations period and accordingly petitioner’s Federal Habeas application was untimely.

Petitioner has not presented any circumstances that justify the use of equitable tolling to forgive the un-timeliness of his application.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss petitioner’s claim.

Justice Ginsburg has filed a dissenting opinion which Justices Stevens Souter and Breyer have joined.