## Facts

- Gary Lawrence, a Florida prisoner sentenced to death, completed direct review when the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1998.
- Under AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), Lawrence had one year to file a federal habeas petition, excluding time tolled while a “properly filed” state collateral application is “pending.” § 2244(d)(2).
- Lawrence filed a state postconviction application 364 days after his conviction became final, leaving one day remaining on the federal limitations clock.
- After the Florida courts denied postconviction relief and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, Lawrence petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari from the state postconviction decision.
- Lawrence filed his federal habeas petition while that certiorari petition was pending.
- The federal district court dismissed the federal habeas petition as untimely, concluding that the limitations period was not statutorily tolled during the certiorari petition and that the filing occurred well after the remaining one day expired.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve statutory tolling and equitable tolling questions.

## Issues

1. Whether AEDPA’s tolling provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), tolls the one-year limitations period while a petition for certiorari is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of a state court’s denial of postconviction relief.
2. Whether equitable tolling applies based on delays in appointment of postconviction counsel and counsel’s miscalculation of the filing deadline.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Court held that § 2244(d)(2) does not toll the limitations period during the pendency of a certiorari petition in the U.S. Supreme Court from a state postconviction decision.
- Assuming equitable tolling is available under AEDPA, the Court held Lawrence did not qualify for equitable tolling on this record.
- Ordinary attorney error (including deadline miscalculation) and the asserted delays in appointment of state postconviction counsel did not justify tolling.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 2244(d)(2), a state collateral application is “pending” only through completion of the state courts’ postconviction review; federal certiorari review of the state collateral judgment is not part of state postconviction “procedures.”
- The statutory text of § 2244(d)(2), focused on “State post-conviction or other collateral review,” differs from § 2244(d)(1)(A)’s direct-review finality rule and does not include time spent seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of state collateral decisions.
- Reading § 2244(d)(2) to include U.S. Supreme Court certiorari review of state collateral decisions would conflict with the principle that a prisoner need not seek such certiorari to exhaust state remedies.
- Equitable tolling (if available) requires diligent pursuit of rights and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing; routine negligence by counsel is insufficient.

## Conclusion

AEDPA’s one-year federal habeas limitations period is tolled under § 2244(d)(2) only while state courts are considering a properly filed state collateral application, and it is not tolled while a certiorari petition from the state collateral judgment is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court; equitable tolling was denied because Lawrence did not show extraordinary circumstances and diligence sufficient to excuse the late filing.


Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007)