Shawn Owens v. William E. Boyd, Warden, Western Illinois Correctional Center

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that facts behind petitioner’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for making a “doomed coercion defense” was known at the time of trial
• noting that, under § 2244(d)(1)(D), the limitations period “begins when the prisoner knows (or through diligence could discover) the important facts, not when the prisoner recognizes their legal significance”
• explaining that the time limitation for federal habeas review begins when petitioner knows, or through due diligence could discover, the important facts, not when petitioner recognizes the facts’ legal significance
• rejecting prisoner’s assertion that the one-year period begins when he 17 “actually understands what legal theories are available”
• rejecting petitioner’s assertion that the one-year period begins when he “actually understands what legal theories are available”
• “Tolling [for a § 2254 petitioner] may be available when some impediment of a variety not covered in § 2244(d)(1) prevents the filing of a federal collateral attack.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).