Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed Christopher Lewis Lacy’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as untimely. The court held that, because Lacy did not file a direct appeal, his conviction became final on January 20, 2025, and that no basis for equitable tolling or an alternative limitations-period date existed; the court also denied a certificate of appealability.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Lacy's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was timely when he did not file a direct appeal and filed the motion more than one year after the expiration of the time to appeal.
- Whether any alternative commencement date under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(2), (3), or (4), or equitable tolling, rendered the motion timely.
- Whether an evidentiary hearing or certificate of appealability was warranted.
Holdings
- When a defendant does not file a direct appeal, the criminal conviction becomes final upon expiration of the time to file a direct appeal, and the one-year § 2255 limitations period begins then. Lacy's conviction became final on January 20, 2025, making his March 16, 2026 motion untimely.
- A defendant who does not file a direct appeal does not receive additional time based on the period for filing a petition for certiorari.
- The motion was not rendered timely by any alternative commencement date under § 2255(f)(2), (3), or (4), and Lacy failed to establish a basis for equitable tolling.
- No evidentiary hearing was required because the existing record showed that Lacy was not entitled to relief.
- A certificate of appealability was denied because Lacy did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and reasonable jurists could not debate the procedural ruling.
Key quotations
“If the defendant does not file an appeal, the criminal conviction becomes final upon the expiration of the time in which to take a direct criminal appeal.”
“Because Defendant has failed to provide a basis for equitable tolling or any other relief that would render Defendant’s § 2255 motion timely, the Court finds that the present motion is time-barred and must be dismissed.”
“A COA may issue only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.””
Factual background
Lacy pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered firearm and received an 80-month sentence. He did not appeal the judgment or sentence. He filed his § 2255 motion on March 16, 2026, more than one year after the conviction became final on January 20, 2025. He acknowledged that the one-year period had expired but argued that finality should be delayed until the time for filing a certiorari petition elapsed.
Procedural history
Lacy pleaded guilty on June 5, 2024, to possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). The court sentenced him to 80 months of incarceration on January 6, 2025. He did not file a direct appeal, and he filed his § 2255 motion on March 16, 2026. The court held that the motion was filed after the one-year limitations period expired, found no basis for an alternative commencement date or equitable tolling, dismissed the motion as untimely, and denied a certificate of appealability.