Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Cite as: 531 U. S. 4 (2000)

Opinion of the Court

with claims that were "previously determined on the merits upon an appeal from the judgment" of conviction or that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not: "[T]he court must deny" such claims for relief. Neither provision purports to set forth a condition to filing, as opposed to a condition to obtaining relief. Motions to vacate that violate these provisions will not be successful, but they have been properly delivered and accepted so long as the filing conditions have been met. Consequently, the alleged failure of respondent's application to comply with §§ 440.10(2)(a) and (c) does not render it "[im]properly filed" for purposes of § 2244(d)(2). The judgment of the Court of Appeals must therefore be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

11

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Last modified: October 4, 2007