Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law

OSJCL Amici Board of Advisors

OSJCL Amici: Views from the Field

Jimenez v. Quarterman

Issue in this case is whether a defendant who has been previously found by the court to have lost his right to direct appeal because of a 6th Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and reinstates appeal, does the 1 year period to seek federal habeas review run from the conclusion of reinstated proceedings
Facts: Petitioner Jimenez pleaded guilty to felony burglary and was placed on deferred adjudicated probation for five years. This was later revoked and he was sentenced to 43 years in prison. Following this Jimenez filed a pro se habeas petition in state court, arguing that legal counsel’s failure to notify of a motion to withdraw himself as counsel deprived him of right to appeal. The court agreed that he was denied right to counsel and granted a reinstated appeal. After these appeals were denied at the state level Jimenez moved to appeal to federal court. In response state argued petition was barred under 28 USC 2244(d)(1)(A) which established one year limitation to file, accruing on the date on which judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. Petitioner argues no time barring because time period should start from conclusion of direct appeal as reinstated.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home