Wall v. Kholi

Background

Khalil Kholi was convicted in Rhode Island state court in 1993 of multiple counts of first‑degree sexual assault and given consecutive life sentences. He appealed, and the state high court affirmed. Kholi filed a Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentence in May 1996 and a separate state postconviction application in May 1997. He later filed a federal habeas petition in September 2007, after the one‑year federal filing deadline in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) had long passed, raising the question whether the Rule 35 motion paused that deadline.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the phrase “collateral review” in AEDPA means judicial reexamination that is outside the direct appeal process. Reading the ordinary meaning of “collateral” and prior cases, the Court concluded that “collateral review” is review that lies aside from direct appeal. The Court found that a Rhode Island Rule 35 motion is a separate judicial reexamination of sentence and therefore qualifies as collateral review. Because the parties agreed Rule 35 is not part of direct review, the Court held that the pending Rule 35 motion tolled AEDPA’s one‑year deadline and made Kholi’s federal habeas petition timely. The Court affirmed the First Circuit’s judgment.

Real world impact

The decision means that a Rhode Island sentence‑reduction motion can stop the federal one‑year clock, giving defendants more time to seek federal habeas review after state proceedings conclude. The ruling prevents federal courts from excluding Rule 35 proceedings from tolling based on labels like “leniency” and requires a practical look at whether the state proceeding is a judicial reexamination.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia wrote a short concurrence agreeing with the main holding but not joining the Court’s footnote that declined to decide a related technical question about direct review.