Leer v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that equitable tolling did not apply on the basis of mental incapacity when the defendant demonstrated his mental acuity by timely filing a pro se motion for appointment of post-conviction counsel
• holding that equitable tolling did not apply on the basis of mental incapacity when the defendant demonstrated his mental acuity by timely filing a pro se motion for appointment of post-conviction counsel
• reversing the grant of equitable tolling as “error” under the same set of facts before the district court
• concluding petitioner’s court filings “demonstrated that he had the capacity to submit an adequate and timely pro se petition for post- conviction relief had he chosen to do so, even if he might later need legal assistance to adequately pursue the action”
• concluding petitioner’s court filings “demonstrated that he had the capacity to submit an adequate and timely pro se petition for post- conviction relief had he chosen to do so, even if he might later need legal assistance to adequately pursue the action”
• in rejecting petitioner’s argument that equitable tolling should apply due to his mental illness, the court noted that the petitioner demonstrated, by submitting coherent filings to the court, that he had the capacity to file a petition before the statute of limitations ran

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).