## Facts

- Patrick Wood, a Colorado prisoner, was convicted in 1987 of murder and related offenses arising from a 1986 robbery and shooting at a pizza shop.
- In 2008, Wood filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction.
- The district court asked Colorado whether it intended to assert AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations defense.
- The State twice informed the district court it “would not challenge” the petition’s timeliness (while not conceding it).
- The district court did not dismiss on timeliness; it denied relief on the merits.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit ordered supplemental briefing on timeliness and the merits and then affirmed solely by holding the petition time-barred, raising the limitation issue on its own initiative.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a court of appeals may enforce AEDPA timeliness sua sponte when the State intentionally declined to invoke the defense in the district court.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court of appeals may raise AEDPA’s statute of limitations on its own initiative when the State failed to assert it below.
2. Whether that discretion exists when the State’s omission was a deliberate waiver rather than an inadvertent forfeiture.
3. Whether the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion by dismissing the habeas petition as untimely despite the State’s intentional choice not to press the defense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and remanded.
- Courts of appeals have authority, though not an obligation, to raise a forfeited AEDPA timeliness defense in exceptional cases.
- That authority does not permit a court to disregard a State’s deliberate waiver of the limitations defense.
- Colorado’s statements to the district court reflected an intentional litigation choice, not oversight.
- The Tenth Circuit abused its discretion by resurrecting the time bar instead of reviewing the district court’s merits decision.

## Legal Principles

- AEDPA’s one-year limitations period (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)) is an affirmative defense that can be forfeited if not timely asserted.
- Forfeiture (inadvertent failure to raise a defense) differs from waiver (intentional relinquishment of a known defense).
- A federal court may, in limited circumstances, consider a forfeited timeliness defense sua sponte in habeas matters to serve institutional interests such as comity and finality.
- A federal court may not bypass, override, or excuse a State’s deliberate waiver of AEDPA’s statute of limitations defense.
- When a State intentionally chooses not to invoke timeliness—especially after a court’s direct inquiry—the limitations defense is removed from the case for purposes of sua sponte enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Court held that while appellate courts may sometimes raise a forfeited AEDPA statute-of-limitations defense on their own initiative, they may not do so when the State deliberately waived the defense; the Tenth Circuit therefore erred in dismissing Wood’s habeas petition as untimely rather than reviewing the merits ruling.


Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012)