Jimenez v. Quarterman

The Supreme Court will step into a dispute over out-of-time appeal procedures next fall when it hears the case of a Texas inmate acting as his own attorney.

In 1995, a Texas judge sentenced Carlos Jimenez to 43 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to burglary and violating the terms of his probation for a prior felony conviction.

The state appeals court denied his appeal after a court-appointed lawyer stated in court filings that Jimenez had no grounds for redress. In 2002, the state Court of Criminal Appeals granted Jimenez’s appeal based on his argument that his lawyer had not informed him about his remarks in court records. Three years later, the court affirmed his conviction.

Jimenez then took his case to federal court, filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he argued that he had lacked effective legal counsel. A federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas rejected Jimenez’s appeal, contending it violated federal law, which allows state inmates one year after a conviction is final to petition for review. But Jimenez contended that the statute of limitations ought to have begun in 2005 when he was
first alerted to the law. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s holding.

In asking the Supreme Court to take his case, Jimenez points to a split between among the circuit courts on the issue.

But in its brief in opposition, the state downplays any conflict between the lower courts.

“The split between the Circuits is very limited and does not merit review by this Court at this time,” the brief states. “Moreover, the Fifth Circuit provides the better interpretation.”

Question presented:

Whether a Certificate of Appealability should have issued pursuant to Slack v McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482, 120 S.Ct.1595, 1604 (2000) on the question of Whether pursuant to 28 U. S.C. 5 2244 (d)(1)(A) When through no fault of the petitioner, he was unable to obtain a direct review and the highest State Court granted relief to place him back to original position on direct review, should the 1-year limitations begin to run after he has completed that direct review resetting the 1-year limitations period?

A unanimous Supreme Court found today that an appeals court erred when it found a Texas inmate had missed a deadline for filing his paperwork in federal court.

In 1995, a Texas judge sentenced Carlos Jimenez to 43 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to burglary and violating the terms of his probation for a prior felony conviction.

The state appeals court denied his appeal after a court-appointed lawyer stated in court filings that Jimenez had no grounds for redress. In 2002, the state Court of Criminal Appeals granted Jimenez’s appeal based on his argument that his lawyer had not informed him about his remarks in court records. Three years later, the court affirmed his conviction.

Jimenez then took his case to federal court, filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he argued that he had lacked effective legal counsel. A federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas rejected Jimenez’s appeal, contending it violated federal law, which allows state inmates one year after a conviction is final to petition for review. But Jimenez contended that the statute of limitations ought to have begun in 2005 when he was first alerted to the law. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s holding.

In asking the Supreme Court to take his case, Jimenez pointed to a split between among the circuit courts on the issue.

But in its brief in opposition, the state downplayed any conflict between the lower courts.

“The split between the Circuits is very limited and does not merit review by this Court at this time,” the brief states. “Moreover, the Fifth Circuit provides the better interpretation.”

On Jan. 13, the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court ruling. In an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that its “decision today is a narrow one. “

“We hold that, where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas relief, his judgment is not yet ‘final’ for purposes of §2244(d)(1)(A).”

Question presented:

Whether a Certificate of Appealability should have issued pursuant to Slack v McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482, 120 S.Ct.1595, 1604 (2000) on the question of Whether pursuant to 28 U. S.C. 5 2244 (d)(1)(A) When through no fault of the petitioner, he was unable to obtain a direct review and the highest State Court granted relief to place him back to original position on direct review, should the 1-year limitations begin to run after he has completed that direct review resetting the 1-year limitations period?