Parrish Searcy v. Harold Carter, 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 AEDPA’s limitations period does not begin to run anew after the completion of state post-conviction proceedings
• holding that motions for delayed appeal toll the AEDPA statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), but that such motions are not part of the direct appeal for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)
• noting that AEDPA’s limitation period doesn’t run anew after state collateral proceedings have tolled the limitations period
• “[W]here a habeas petitioner fails to timely seek review of a state appellate court decision, the conviction is final when the time period for filing that appeal expires.”
• “As we have repeatedly recognized, when AEDPA applies, ‘a court of appeals will address only the issues which are specified in the certificate of appealability.’” (quoting Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 105 F.3d 1063, 1074 (6th Cir. 1997))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).