Summary
finding that § 2254 petition filed on April 23, 1997, was not time-barred
Summary of this case from Fennell v. ArtuzOpinion
No. 97-2656.
Argued: May 18, 1998.
Decided: June 24, 1998.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Harold Baer, Jr., Judge, dismissing as untimely a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 Supp. 1998) within one year after effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 1998).
Vacated and remanded. See Ross v. Artuz, No. 97-2789 (2d Cir. June 24, 1998); Mickens v. United States, No. 97-2734 (2d Cir. June 24, 1998).
STEVEN A. FELDMAN, Roslyn, New York (Feldman Feldman, Roslyn, New York, of counsel), submitted a brief for Petitioner-Appellant.
MARC FRAZIER SCHOLL, Assistant District Attorney, New York, New York (Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney for New York County, Mark Dwyer, Assistant District Attorney, New York, New York, on the brief), for Respondent-Appellee.
Petitioner Dexter Joseph, a New York State prisoner, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Harold Baer, Jr., Judge, dismissing his habeas corpus petition, filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 Supp. 1998), as untimely under § 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA" or the "Act"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 101, 110 Stat. 1214, 1217 (to be codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)). Joseph was convicted of murder, assault, and weapons charges in state court in 1991. His conviction was affirmed on appeal, and it became final in March 1995. He filed the instant § 2254 petition (his first) on April 23, 1997. The district court, citing Peterson v. Demskie, 107 F.3d 92, 93 (2d Cir. 1997), found that Joseph's petition was time-barred under AEDPA because it was not filed within a "reasonable time" after AEDPA's effective date.
In Ross v. Artuz, No. 97-2789 (2d Cir. June 24, 1998), and Mickens v. United States, No. 97-2734 (2d Cir. June 24, 1998), argued in tandem with the present case and decided today, we have ruled that AEDPA's limitations period does not bar a § 2254 petition, or a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 Supp. 1998), filed within one year after the effective date of AEDPA, i.e., on or before April 24, 1997. Accordingly, Joseph's petition, filed on April 23, 1997, is timely.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.