Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Barry R. McClure v. Steve Hargett
Citations: 166 F.3d 347; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 37237; 1998 WL 852616Docket: 98-6268
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; December 9, 1998; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue and are properly attached or provided to the court and all parties, following the General Order of November 29, 1993. In Barry R. McClure v. Steve Hargett, the Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of McClure's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). McClure argued that the district court erred by not tolling the limitations period while his state post-conviction relief requests were pending. The court determined that the limitations period should have been tolled during this time, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), which indicates that time spent on properly filed state applications for post-conviction relief does not count towards the limitations period. The court noted that McClure's direct appeal became final before the AEDPA was enacted, entitling him to a one-year grace period starting April 24, 1996. His state post-conviction application was filed before the expiration of this grace period but concluded after the limitations period had lapsed. The court referenced a similar case, Hoggro v. Boone, reinforcing the requirement to toll the limitations period for state post-conviction proceedings. The Tenth Circuit thus reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Hoggro's decision governs the case outcome. Fourteen days prior to the one-year limitation expiration on April 24, 1997, the Petitioner requested post-conviction relief, which was denied after the expiration of the limitation period. Four days post-denial, the Petitioner filed a 2254 habeas corpus petition. Under Section 2244(d)(2), the district court was mandated to toll the limitation period during the post-conviction review, allowing the Petitioner to file his habeas petition ten days before the deadline, thus rendering it timely. The court reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The three-judge panel determined that oral argument was unnecessary for this appeal. The order and judgment are not precedent-setting except under specific doctrines, and while the district court lacked the benefit of prior rulings, the panel is bound by earlier decisions unless overturned by en banc review or a higher court. The Respondent's request to reconsider the previous ruling was declined.