Charles v. Capra

Background

Alan Charles, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed a petition challenging his October 13, 2011 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, Sullivan County. The opinion states that Charles represented himself and paid the filing fee.

The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, modified his sentence and affirmed his conviction on January 15, 2015. The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on March 19, 2015. The district court determined that the conviction became final on or about June 17, 2015, after the 90-day period for seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court expired. Charles placed his petition in the prison mail collection box on February 17, 2021.

Timeliness issue

The petition sought federal habeas relief, which is a court challenge to unlawful custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a state prisoner generally has one year to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, measured from the latest of several events described by the statute.

The court explained that properly filed state post-conviction applications can pause the one-year period while they are pending if they were filed before the federal limitations period expired. They do not restart a limitations period that has already expired.

Charles stated that he filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Appellate Division on December 18, 2015, and that the Appellate Division denied it on September 12, 2017. He also stated that he filed a motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10, but he did not provide the dates when that motion was filed or decided. Because those dates were missing, the court could not determine whether the state proceedings paused the federal filing deadline.

The opinion also recounts Charles’s statement that he tried to have the Southern District of New York postpone a petition in January 2018 while he exhausted constitutional issues in state court. The court stated that district courts lack jurisdiction to grant an extension or stay a petition before the petition has been filed, and found no indication that Charles submitted a § 2254 petition in January 2018.

Order

The court directed Charles to file, within 60 days of the order, a declaration explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. The declaration must list the filing and decision dates for all state post-conviction applications, along with the dates of appeals, requests for permission to appeal, decisions, and notice of those decisions.

The court also stated that, if Charles believed the petition was late, he could allege facts showing that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. If he timely filed a proper declaration, the court would review it and, if appropriate, order the respondent to answer. If he failed to comply and could not show good cause for that failure, the petition would be denied as time-barred. The court did not require an answer at that stage and did not finally rule on the petition’s timeliness in this order.

Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order on March 9, 2021.