Garrett v. Payne

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · October 3, 2025 · No. 23-3553

Summary

This Eighth Circuit opinion determines whether an Arkansas motion for a belated direct appeal constitutes 'collateral review' that tolls the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus petitions under AEDPA. The court holds that because such motions occur outside the direct appeal process and mandate judicial reexamination of the underlying conviction, they trigger statutory tolling. Accordingly, the court reverses the district court's time-barred dismissal and remands the case for further proceedings.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Writing for the Court
KELLY; ERICKSON; STRAS
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decision date
October 3, 2025
Docket number
23-3553
Procedural posture
Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas corpus petition; district court dismissed as untimely but issued a certificate of appealability on the tolling issue.
Standard of review
De novo for legal conclusions; clear error for factual findings.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Harl A. Garrett v. Dexter Payne
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

federal habeas corpusstate post-conviction reliefpost-conviction reliefappellate jurisdictionstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an Arkansas motion for a belated appeal constitutes “collateral review” under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2) and therefore tolls the AEDPA one‑year limitations period.
  2. Whether the district court erred in finding Garrett’s habeas petition untimely.

Holdings

  1. An Arkansas belated‑appeal motion is collateral review under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2) and therefore tolls the one‑year limitations period.
  2. The district court erred; the petition is timely because the belated‑appeal motion tolled the limitations period.

Key quotations

“collateral review” consists of a “judicial reexamination of a judgment or claim in a proceeding outside of the direct review process.” Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. at 553 (emphasis added)
A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to counsel on the first direct appeal. Ahumada v. United States, 994 F.3d at 960 (8th Cir. 2021).

Factual background

Garrett was convicted of sexual assault in August 2019 and asked his trial counsel to file a direct appeal. The counsel withdrew on September 11, 2019, without informing Garrett until October 8, 2019, by which time the 30‑day appeal window had expired. Garrett filed a belated‑appeal motion in Arkansas, which was ultimately denied, and later filed a federal habeas petition alleging a violation of his right to a direct appeal.

Procedural history

Garrett was convicted of second‑degree sexual assault in Arkansas in 2019. His counsel withdrew before filing a notice of appeal, and his belated‑appeal motion was denied by the Arkansas Supreme Court. He filed a federal habeas petition in 2020, which the district court dismissed as time‑barred. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the tolling question.

Remand instructions

Remand for further proceedings consistent with the finding that the belated‑appeal motion tolls the AEDPA limitations period.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…