667 F.3d 247
2d Cir.2012Background
- Collins was convicted in 2001 of murder and attempted murder in New York; sentences ran concurrently but DOCS later added the undischarged robbery term to run consecutively under §70.25(2-a).
- Following direct review, the 2001 conviction became final in 2005; from 2005 to 2008 Collins filed several state post-conviction motions challenging the sentencing calculation.
- In 2008 Collins filed a federal habeas petition challenging the 2001 judgment; the district court dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
- The district court held that certain state filings (an Article 78 petition and renewal) did not toll the AEDPA one-year limit because they were not directed at the pertinent judgment; other filings under § 440.10 and § 440.20 did toll.
- On appeal, Collins argues Article 78 tolling should apply under § 2244(d)(2); Respondent argues only tolling that reviews the pertinent judgment is eligible and the Article 78 petition did not seek such review.
- This court affirms, concluding the Article 78 petition did not toll the AEDPA statute because it did not seek review of the pertinent 2001 judgment; the § 440.20 motion, however, did toll the period for relief from the judgment itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 78 tolls AEDPA § 2244(d)(2). | Collins says Article 78 petitions toll the period. | Respondent argues Article 78 does not seek review of the pertinent judgment. | No tolling from Article 78 petitions. |
| Whether Wall v. Kohli supports tolling of the Article 78 petition. | Wall suggests tolling through collateral review. | Wall does not apply because the filing sought non-judicial review of the judgment’s calculation. | Wall does not render Article 78 tolling applicable here. |
| Whether the § 440.20 motion tolled the limitations period. | First § 440.20 motion sought relief from the judgment, potentially tolling. | The 440.20 motion did toll as it challenged the judgment; the Article 78 petition did not. | The first § 440.20 motion tolls; Article 78 does not. |
| Whether tolling via § 2244(d)(2) would undermine AEDPA structure. | Tolling inappropriate if it affects the pertinent judgment indirectly. | Tolling should require review of the pertinent judgment. | Tolling should be limited to review of the pertinent judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Kohli, 131 S. Ct. 1278 (2011) (tolling requires collateral review that involves review of the pertinent judgment)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) (AEDPA tolling and exhaustion principles)
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) (one-year statute of limitations base; tolling mechanics)
- Saunders v. Senkowski, 587 F.3d 543 (2d Cir. 2009) (de novo review of timeliness; plain-language interpretation of § 2244(d)(2))
- Hodge v. Greiner, 269 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2001) (discussion of Article 78 as potential equivalent)