Pace v. Diguglielmo
In 1985, Pace pled guilty to second-degree murder in Pennsylvania and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Pace filed a state habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and trial court error. The petition was denied in 1992. In 1996, following the amendment of the state post-conviction relief statute, Pace filed a second request for habeas relief, reiterating the same claims. The state courts ruled that his second petition was untimely filed.
Pace then filed a federal habeas petition. The Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which controls federal post-conviction relief, has a time limit that requires already incarcerated prisoners to file a petition within one year of the effective date of the statute. The time limit is paused while a "properly filed" state post-conviction relief petition is pending in the state courts. Pace filed his habeas corpus petition more than two-and-a-half years after the one-year deadline. Pace asserted that he could not have filed his petition within the first year after AEDPA's enactment because he had not exhausted his remedies in state court. The district court ruled in his favor, finding that Pace's petition for state post-conviction relief had effectively paused AEDPA's one-year deadline. The court relied on a Supreme Court case, Artuz v. Bennett , and decisions in other circuit courts of appeals, which held that untimely state post-convictions petitions may be considered "properly filed" for the purpose of pausing the AEDPA time limit. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that its most recent decision in Merritt v. Blaine requires that the untimely state post-conviction relief petition not be considered "properly filed."
Questions Presented:
1. Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeal regarding an important question that this Court explicitly reserved
in Artuz v. Bennett , 531 U.S. 4 (2000) - whether an untimely state post-conviction petition may be "properly filed" under ยง 2244(d)(2)?
2. Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeal regarding whether Carey v. Saffold , 536 U.S. 214 (2002) answered the question about "properly filed"
that Artuz reserved?
3. Should this Court grant the writ to answer the question about "properly filed" which was reserved by Artuz and which the Third Circuit decided erroneously?
4. Should this Court grant the writ and review the Third Circuit's denial of equitable tolling, where the Third Circuit denies all federal habeas review to petitioners who act appropriately,
reasonably and diligently, and as demanded by the exhaustion requirement, in seeking state court remedies?
