Payne v. Kemna
Decision Date | 17 March 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 04-3856.,04-3856. |
Citation | 441 F.3d 570 |
Parties | Juan PAYNE, Appellant, v. Michael L. KEMNA, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Daniel L. Mohs, St. Louis, Missouri, for appellant.
Stephen D. Hawke, AAG, Jefferson City, Missouri, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
Juan Payne appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because Payne's petition was timely filed, we reverse.
In 1996, Payne was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in Missouri and sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Following a direct appeal, Payne moved for state post-conviction relief. Various state courts considered his motion before the Missouri Court of Appeals finally rejected it in an opinion released on June 5, 2001. The court issued the mandate on August 13, 2001. On August 13, 2002, exactly one year after the mandate was issued, Payne filed a petition seeking federal habeas corpus relief. The district court denied the petition as barred by the one-year limitations period provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Relying on dicta in Peterson v. Gammon, 200 F.3d 1202 (8th Cir.2000), it held that the state proceedings were no longer "pending" once the state appellate court issued its opinion, even though the mandate had not been issued. Payne argues that his state post-conviction relief proceedings were "pending" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) until the mandate was issued.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 requires a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief to file his federal petition within a year after his state conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Section 2244(d)(2) specifies that this limitations period does not include the time during which a properly filed application for state collateral review is "pending" in the state courts. We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the one-year AEDPA limitation provision. Williams v. Bruton, 299 F.3d 981, 982 (8th Cir.2002).
Whether Payne's appeal was "pending" for purposes of § 2244 is a matter of federal law. Mills v. Norris, 187 F.3d 881, 883 (8th Cir.1999). The governing federal law, in turn, requires an examination of the state court procedures. In Carey v. Saffold, the Supreme Court instructed that an application is pending [for purposes of Section 2244(d)(2)] as long as the ordinary state collateral review process is "in continuance"—i.e., "until the completion of" that process. In other words, until the application has achieved final resolution through the State's post conviction procedures, by definition it remains "pending."
536 U.S. 214, 219-20, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002). Thus, we must examine the particular state's procedure to determine when the process has reached completion or final resolution. See Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir.2000) ( ).
The Missouri Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that an appeal is not complete or final until the mandate is issued. For example, in Williams v. Blumer, an appellate court decision triggered a cause of action for the plaintiffs, and the court was asked to determine when the statute of limitations began to run. 763 S.W.2d 242, 245 (Mo.Ct.App.1988). The court rejected the argument that the issuance of the opinion was the proper triggering event. Instead, it held that "the preferable starting date for the beginning point of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Riddle v. Kemna
...from May 4, 2001, until April 21, 2004, while the state post-conviction case was pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Payne v. Kemna, 441 F.3d 570, 571-72 (8th Cir.2006) (Missouri post-conviction relief proceedings are pending under AEDPA until mandate issues); Lawrence v. Florida, ___ U.S.......
-
Gibson v. Dormire
...939 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that post-conviction proceedings in Missouri are not final until issuance of the mandate); Payne v. Kemna, 441 F.3d 570, 572 (8th Cir. 2006) ("Under Missouri state court procedures, [the petitioner's] post-conviction relief proceedings were not final until the i......
-
Wright v. Pierce
...the date of finality, as opposed to the date on which the post-conviction appellate decision was issued. See, e.g., Payne v. Kemna, 441 F.3d 570, 571–72 (8th Cir.2006) ; Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir.2000). The State has not provided any argument regarding the issue, and th......
-
Drisdel v. Lewis
...Missouri state-court procedures, post-conviction relief proceedings are not final until the issuance of the mandate. Payne v. Kemna, 441 F.3d 570, 572 (8th Cir. 2006). The court's mandate issued March 3, 2017. Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on Monday, March 5, 2018 ......