Gonzalez v. Thaler
| Gonzalez v. Thaler | |
|---|---|
| Decided January 10, 2012 | |
| Full case name | Gonzalez v. Thaler |
| Citations | 565 U.S. 134 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Section 2253(c)(3) of AEDPA is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule. A certificate of appealability's failure to "indicate" a constitutional issue does not deprive a Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. For a person incarcerated by a state who does not seek review in that state's highest court, the judgment becomes "final" for purposes of AEDPA's §2244(d)(1)(A) on the date that the time for seeking such review expires. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Scalia |
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 2253(c)(3) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule. A certificate of appealability's failure to "indicate" a constitutional issue does not deprive a Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. For a person incarcerated by a state who does not seek review in that state's highest court, the judgment becomes "final" for purposes of AEDPA's Section 2244(d)(1)(A) on the date that the time for seeking such review expires.