Wood v. Milyard, 132 S. Ct. 1826

Wood, a Colorado state prisoner, was convicted in 1987 and direct appeal denied; state postconviction relief was pursued in 1995 and 2004; AEDPA imposes a 1-year habeas clock starting April 24, 1996, with tolling for properly filed state petitions; Wood’s 1995 Rule 35(c) motion was argued to have tolled period, potentially until 2004 or later; the District Court allowed briefing on timeliness and exhaustion, and the State stated it would not challenge timeliness but would not concede it; the Tenth Circuit initially affirmed dismissal on timeliness grounds, prompting review to decide whether appellate courts may raise forfeited timeliness defenses sua sponte and whether State representations precluded such consideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a court of appeals raise a forfeited timeliness defense sua sponte?	Wood	Wood	Yes for discretionary use by the appellate court
Do the State’s representations preclude appellate timeliness review?	Wood	State	No; State waiver does not bar timeliness review on appeal

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1987) (recognizes a modest exception to forfeiture for nonexhaustion)
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (U.S. 2006) (sua sponte timeliness review permissible for forfeited defenses)
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (U.S. 2008) (limits sua sponte review to prevent abuse of discretion)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (U.S. 2004) (distinguishes waived vs forfeited defenses)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (forfeiture doctrine applied to procedural defenses)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling recognized as a separate consideration)