When does the AEDPA year start after direct review of a state judgment?

Section 2244(d)(1)(A) uses conclusion of direct review or expiry of the time to seek it. The correct route depends on the actual appeal history. Compare all four statutory accrual limbs and qualifying state-review tolling before treating any anniversary as the filing endpoint.

Responsible actor. A person in custody under a state-court judgment seeking federal habeas relief.

Identify the state judgment and every direct-review step actually taken.

If the prisoner did not seek the state’s highest-court review, establish when the available period for that review expired. Gonzalez does not add an automatic ninety days.

If Supreme Court direct review was available, establish the applicable certiorari route and any operative rehearing or granted relief.

Compare limbs (B), (C) and (D), then audit qualifying state collateral review under subsection (d)(2).

This source guide requires the latest qualifying accrual date, complete review history, claim-specific facts and every supported tolling interval. It supplies no automatic date or paid calculation. A single date cannot establish the limitation period for this procedure.

1. Establish the relevant judgment, asserted claim and governing state-custody or federal-sentence procedure.
2. Compare every applicable statutory accrual limb using the actual review and discovery record.
3. Audit properly filed state collateral applications and their complete qualifying pending intervals.
4. Apply the appropriate time-computation and filing rules only after those legal facts are established.

After establishing the governing accrual event, exclude that event day and examine the corresponding anniversary under the applicable federal time-computation rules. A one-year period must not be replaced mechanically with 365 days across a leap year. This guide does not resolve a February 29 anniversary or supply a running-day ledger. The latest qualifying statutory accrual date and every legally supported excluded interval must be established before arithmetic can represent a filing endpoint. Section 2244(d)(2) excludes qualifying state-review pending time from the limitation ledger. It does not create a new one-year period each time an application ends.

Rule 6(a) supplies ordinary weekend, legal-holiday and qualifying clerk-inaccessibility rules where applicable through Habeas Rule 12. Identify the filing district, actual holidays and access facts. A hypothetical Saturday anniversary does not establish the next open filing day in an actual case. A closed-day adjustment cannot itself establish accrual, statutory tolling or equitable relief.

This source guide requires the latest qualifying accrual date, complete review history, claim-specific facts and every supported tolling interval. It supplies no automatic date or paid calculation. A single date cannot establish the limitation period for this procedure.

Assume October 6, 2026 is already established as this claim’s latest qualifying accrual date, with no applicable excluded interval. A corresponding-anniversary illustration reaches October 6, 2027. This arithmetic does not determine whether the assumed legal trigger is correct. October 6, 2027 is an explanatory nominal anniversary only. The guide supplies no automatic filing endpoint.

Assume October 3, 2025 is the established latest accrual date and no excluded interval applies. The corresponding anniversary is Saturday, October 3, 2026. A weekend-only illustration reaches Monday, October 5. Actual district holidays, clerk access and filing facts remain separate checks. Do not publish an automatic Monday filing date without establishing the applicable calendar and all other facts.

Assume available state highest-court review expires October 6, 2026 and the prisoner did not seek it. Gonzalez places finality at that expiry. Adding an automatic ninety days would reach January 4, 2027 and would use the wrong route. Use the established available-review expiry in the accrual inquiry. Do not add a fictional certiorari window.

Assume October 6, 2026 accrual and an independently established qualifying thirty-day state-review interval from January 5 through February 3, 2027, inclusive. Excluding those thirty qualifying pending days would move the October 6 nominal anniversary to November 5, 2027. Proper filing and the entire pending interval are assumed, not inferred. The example illustrates exclusion of proved time, not a fresh year after state review or a finding that a particular application qualifies.

Direct review route controls

Gonzalez distinguishes prisoners who pursue Supreme Court review from prisoners whose time to seek available review expires. Failure to seek state highest-court review does not create an extra ninety days.

Proper filing and actual pendency

An untimely state petition rejected under state filing rules does not qualify as properly filed merely because a clerk accepted it.

Collateral certiorari is different

Lawrence excludes time seeking Supreme Court certiorari from completed state collateral review from subsection (d)(2) tolling.

Exceptional relief is not automatic

Holland requires diligent pursuit and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing. McQuiggin recognizes a demanding actual-innocence gateway in its state-prisoner setting.

• This source guide requires the latest qualifying accrual date, complete review history, claim-specific facts and every supported tolling interval. It supplies no automatic date or paid calculation. A single date cannot establish the limitation period for this procedure.
• This question concerns the state-prisoner direct-review accrual limb. The discovery and newly recognized-right limbs require different evidence, although section 2244(d)(1) compares the applicable dates.

• Keep the operative judgment, appellate decisions and applicable review-period evidence.
• Document every asserted claim’s statutory accrual basis and supporting diligence record.
• Record each state collateral application’s proper filing and exact pending interval.
• Check the filing district’s rules, holidays, clerk access and inmate-mail evidence.
• Review second-or-successive restrictions separately from limitation arithmetic.
• The state prisoner files the petition with the appropriate federal district court clerk under Section 2254 Rule 3. For an inmate filing, establish timely deposit, use of the institution’s legal-mail system when one exists, and the required declaration or notarized evidence of deposit and prepaid first-class postage. The date counsel receives a judgment or the date a prison later delivers a paper to court is not a substitute for the applicable trigger or proven filing act.