Dist. Ct. did not err in granting State’s motion for extension of time to comply with terms of conditional writ that required State to either release defendant within 120 days or grant him within same time period leave to file new direct appeal with assistance of counsel. Record showed that State filed instant motion on day after expiration of 120-day period (and on same day that defendant had filed motion seeking his immediate release), and Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in finding that State’s confusion as to whether it or defendant should have filed pleading to initiate new appeal was understandable. Ct. further found that State’s request for extension of time was properly characterized as motion under Rule 60(b)(1), which can be filed up to one year after entry of underlying order at issue in motion.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus