Pickens v. Tinsley

── Pickens v. Tinsley ── Case No.: 25-5164 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 07, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-5164 Document: 11 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 7, 2026 _______________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court DARRIN LYNN PICKENS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 25-5164 (Case No. 4:25-CV-00022-SEH-CDL) SCOTT TINSLEY, Interim Warden, (N.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. _______________________________________ ORDER _______________________________________ Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges . _______________________________________ Mr. Darrin Pickens sought federal habeas relief in district court, but the district court concluded that the petition was time-barred. Mr. Pickens wants to appeal, but he can do so only if a judge grants a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We decline to issue the certificate and dismiss the matter. To obtain a certificate of appealability, Mr. Pickens must show that the ruling on timeliness is reasonably debatable. See Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that when the district court denies habeas relief based on timeliness, the court of appeals can issue a certificate of appealability only if the district court’s ruling on timeliness  Appellate Case: 25-5164 Document: 11 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 2 is at least reasonably debatable). In our view, the district court’s ruling on timeliness is not reasonably debatable. For this action, a one-year period of limitations governs. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This period starts when the judgment of conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). To determine when the conviction became final, we start with the date of the sentence: September 4, 2001. R. vol. 1, at 201. If Mr. Pickens had sought direct review, he would have needed to appeal by September 14, 2001. See Okla. Crim. App. R. 2.1(B). He didn’t appeal, so his sentence became final on September 14, 2001. See Ezell v. Allbaugh, 777 F. App’x 271, 273–74 (10th Cir. 2019). The one-year period of limitations began on September 15, 2001, and expired on September 16, 2002. See United States v. Hurst, 322 F.3d 1256, 1260– 62 (10th Cir. 2003). 1 The limitations period can be tolled when the petitioner seeks collateral relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and Mr. Pickens requested collateral relief on April 21, 2008. By then, though, the limitations period had already run. So the request for collateral relief did not affect the limitations period. See Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 714 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that the limitations period is tolled by state petitions for 1 The one-year period ended on September 15, 2002. But this was a Sunday. So the limitations period was extended to Monday, September 16, 2002. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). 2  Appellate Case: 25-5164 Document: 11 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 3 habeas relief only when they’re filed within the one-year limitations period). So the limitations period ran uninterrupted and expired on September 16, 2002. Mr. Pickens missed that deadline by more than twenty years. Mr. Pickens argues that (1) the state court lacked jurisdiction and (2) the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence. But these arguments involve the merits rather than timeliness. Given the failure to file a timely habeas petition in f