Wood v. Milyard

Wood v. Milyard
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 24, 2012
Full case name	Wood v. Milyard
Citations	566 U.S. 463 ( more )
Holding
A court abuses its discretion if it raises a timeliness objection on its own after the State deliberately waived a statute of limitations defense.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concurrence	Thomas, joined by Scalia
Laws applied
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463(2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a court abuses its discretion if it raises a timeliness objection on its own after the State deliberately waived a statute of limitations defense. ^{[1] [2]}

Background

In 1987, Patrick Wood was convicted of murder and other crimes by a Colorado court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Wood filed a federal habeas petition in 2008. After receiving Wood's petition, the federal District Court asked the State if it planned to argue that the petition was untimely. In response, the State twice informed the District Court that it would "not challenge, but [was] not conceding," the timeliness of Wood's petition. Thereafter, the District Court rejected Wood's claims on the merits. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the parties to brief both the merits and the timeliness of Wood's petition. After briefing, the court held the petition time barred, concluding that the court had authority to raise timeliness on its own motion, and that the State had not taken the issue off the table by declining to raise a statute of limitations defense in the District Court. ^[1]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 24, 2012. The court said that courts of appeals, like district courts, have the authority to raise a forfeited timeliness defense on their own initiative in exceptional cases, but they do not have an obligation to do so. ^[1]

References

1. Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012).
2. Dodson, Scott (April 24, 2012). "Opinion analysis: An appellate court lacks discretion to override a state's deliberate waiver of AEDPA's limitations defense". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved October 14, 2025.

External links

• Text of Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463(2012) is available from: Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .