Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/403

 546US1

192

Unit: $U16

[08-22-08 15:44:46] PAGES PGT: OPIN

EVANS v. CHAVIS Opinion of the Court

days. See id., at 219. California, however, has a special system governing appeals when prisoners seek relief on col­ lateral review. Under that system, the equivalent of a no­ tice of appeal is timely if ﬁled within a “reasonable time.” In re Harris, 5 Cal. 4th 813, 828, n. 7, 855 P. 2d 391, 398, n. 7 (1993); see also Saffold, supra, at 221. In this case, the Ninth Circuit found timely a California prisoner’s request for appellate review made three years after the lower state court ruled against him. Chavis v. LeMarque, 382 F. 3d 921 (2004). We conclude that the Cir­ cuit departed from our interpretation of the Act as applied to California’s system, Carey v. Saffold, supra, and we there­ fore reverse its judgment. I We begin with our holding in Carey v. Saffold. In that case we addressed three questions. A We initially considered the question just mentioned: For purposes of tolling AEDPA’s 1-year limitations period, is a state habeas application “pending” during the interval be­ tween (1) the time a lower state court reaches an adverse decision, and (2) the day the prisoner timely ﬁles an appeal? We answered this question “yes.” 536 U. S., at 219–221. If the ﬁling of the appeal is timely, the period between the ad­ verse lower court decision and the ﬁling (typically just a few days) is not counted against the 1-year AEDPA time limit. B We then pointed out that in most States a prisoner who seeks review of an adverse lower court decision must ﬁle a notice of appeal in a higher court, and the timeliness of that notice of appeal is measured in terms of a determinate time period, such as 30 or 60 days. Id., at 219. As we explained, however, California has a different rule. In California, a state prisoner may seek review of an adverse lower court