Alfred L. Dicenzi v. Norman Rose, Warden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trigger date for a claim asserting a denial of the right to appeal was when the state court denied leave to file the delayed appeal
• holding that statute of limitations on the claim that the state appellate court improperly denied a motion for delayed appeal began on a different date than the claims that related to issues that occurred at sentencing
• recognizing that where a criminal defendant is not advised or aware of his right to appeal, “the proper task . . . is to determine when a duly diligent person in petitioner’s circumstances would have discovered [his right to an appeal]”
• stating that a properly filed post-conviction motion tolls the limitations period, but it does not “restart” a limitations period that has already run
• explaining that a district court should only hold an evidentiary hearing on statute of limitations issues in habeas cases in special circumstances
• stating that when the state court proceedings that tolled the limitations period are no longer pending, the limitation period resumes at that point where it was tolled rather than starting anew

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).