Connection lost
Server error
Pace v. DiGuglielmo Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A state post-conviction petition dismissed by a state court as untimely is not “properly filed” under AEDPA. Therefore, it does not pause (toll) the one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas corpus petition.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a state court’s untimeliness determination is dispositive for federal tolling purposes under AEDPA. It classifies timeliness requirements as fundamental “conditions to filing,” reinforcing statutory finality and encouraging the use of protective federal petitions.
Pace v. DiGuglielmo Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1986, petitioner John Pace pleaded guilty to murder in Pennsylvania state court and did not directly appeal. His first state post-conviction petition concluded in 1992. In November 1996, over four years later, Pace filed a second state post-conviction petition under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). By this time, the PCRA included a one-year statute of limitations, which had become effective in January 1996. The state trial court denied Pace’s petition on other grounds. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued for the first time that the petition was untimely. The state appellate court agreed and dismissed the petition solely on timeliness grounds. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review. Pace then filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in December 1999. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pace had one year from April 24, 1996, to file his federal petition. His petition was therefore untimely unless the limitations period was tolled while his second state PCRA petition was pending from November 1996 to July 1999.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a state post-conviction relief petition that a state court dismisses as untimely considered ‘a properly filed application’ that tolls the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)?
No. The Court held that because the state court rejected the petitioner’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a state post-conviction relief petition that a state court dismisses as untimely considered ‘a properly filed application’ that tolls the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)?
Conclusion
This decision establishes a clear rule that a state court's finding of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea co
Legal Rule
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo conseq
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the meaning of 'properly filed' within 28 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia des
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state post-conviction petition dismissed by a state court as untimely