Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Defense Newsletter Blog
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Defense Newsletter BlogThompson: 2254 Petition Timely
By Tim Cone
ADVERTISEMENTS
In Thompson v. Sec. Dep?t of Corrections, No. 08-10540 (Jan. 27, 2010), the Court held that a § 2254 habeas petition was timely filed, and reversed the dismissal of the petition.The timeliness of Thompson?s federal habeas petition turned on whether his prior ?habeas? filings in Florida State courts were ?properly filed? for the purpose of tolling the one-year statute of limitations of AEDPA. The State argued that they were not properly filed because Florida law requires such challenges to be made in a motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850, not in a ?habeas petition.? The ?properly filed? inquiry, however, goes to whether a court has ?initial jurisdiction? over the filing. Here, Thompson ?invoked the wrong statutory vehicle? but he filed in the ?proper courts...continue to full postFull post as published by Defense Newsletter Blog on January 28, 2010 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

2254 Petition Dismissed for Failure to Pay Fee
CA1: the First says that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is constitutional, because it isnt a rule of decision
Clearly Established Law Not Always Clear
SCOTUS asks SG's views in retaliation case
Fifth District: More Certiorari








