Melville v. Shinn

A state post-conviction relief application is “pending as long as the ordinary state collateral review process is in continuance.” Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-20 (2002).

Paul Melville, Jr. (“Appellant”), appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. §2245 habeas petition.  Appellant assigned error to the district court’s order dismissing the petition as untimely. On appeal, Appellant argued that the relevant date was when the Arizona Court of Appeals mandate had been issued on July 7, 2017. The state responded that because tolling concludes when the state court is no longer reviewing the application, the correct date was when the Court of Appeals denied Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) on April 18, 2017. According to the Supreme Court’s interpretation, a state post-conviction relief application is “pending as long as the ordinary state collateral review process is in continuance.” Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-20 (2002). Accordingly, the Court found that neither party was correct. The relevant date was June 1, 2017, when Appellant’s PCR application ceased to be pending, because that is when “the application had achieved final resolution through the State’s post-conviction procedures.” Carey, 536 U.S. at 220. Because Appellant had initiated PCR proceedings before his convictions were finalized, statutory tolling began immediately, and the one-year limitations period under the AEDPA had not started until June 2, 2017. Appellant filed his habeas petition on June 1, 2018. Therefore, it was timely. REVERSED the district court’s order dismissing the petition as untimely and REMANDED for further proceedings.