Supreme Court of the United States
Johnson v. United States
April 4, 2005544 U.S. 295
Summary
The Court held that a state‑court order vacating a prior conviction is a "fact" for purposes of the one‑year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. §2255¶6(4), but that the period begins only when the petitioner receives notice of the vacatur and has shown due diligence in seeking that order after the federal judgment entered. Accordingly, Johnson’s §2255 motion was untimely and the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit was affirmed. Justice Kennedy filed a dissent arguing that the Court’s new due‑diligence requirement is unwarranted and should not be required for relief.
Holding
- Whether a vacatur of a prior state conviction is a "fact" that triggers the one‑year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. §2255¶6(4).. Yes; the vacatur is a fact for purposes of the limitation period.
- Whether the petitioner must show due diligence in seeking the vacatur before the limitation period can begin.. Yes; the petitioner must demonstrate due diligence in obtaining the vacatur after the federal judgment entered.
- Whether Johnson’s §2255 motion was timely under the applicable limitation period.. No; Johnson failed to act with the required diligence and therefore filed untimely.
Docket 03-9685