Background
Danny Joe Sitsler was convicted of first-degree murder in Oklahoma in 1993 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction became final on February 1, 1999, making the deadline for filing a federal habeas petition under Section 2254 February 2, 2000. Sitsler filed a state post-conviction application on that deadline date, but it was signed only by his attorney and notarized, lacking a sworn statement from Sitsler himself. The application sat dormant for twenty-two years until Sitsler filed an amended version in 2022. He later filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court dismissed as untimely because the original state application was not properly filed.
The court’s reasoning
The court analyzed whether the original application qualified as properly filed under Section 2244(d)(2) to toll the limitations period. The court concluded that Oklahoma law requires a verified application to contain a sworn statement from the applicant regarding facts within their personal knowledge. The court found that an attorney cannot satisfy this requirement on behalf of the applicant because the attorney lacks personal knowledge of the facts. Since Sitsler’s original application lacked this sworn affirmation, it was not properly filed, and the limitations period was not tolled.
We conclude that even if an APCR is notarized, it still must indicate that the applicant affirmatively swears to the truth and correctness of facts within his or her personal knowledge.
Sitsler v. Harding, No. 25-5103 (10th Cir. 2022)
What it means going forward
State prisoners must ensure their post-conviction applications include a personal sworn statement from the applicant to toll the federal statute of limitations. Mere notarization of an attorney’s signature is insufficient to preserve the right to file a federal habeas petition.