The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that a Kentucky prisoner’s federal habeas petition was filed on time after a state court allowed him to pursue a belated appeal.
In Welch v. Plappert, decided March 9, 2026, the court reversed a federal district court ruling that had dismissed Ricky Lee Welch’s habeas petition as untimely. The lower court concluded that Welch’s delayed appeal meant his state post-conviction proceedings were no longer “pending,” allowing the federal deadline to expire.
The Sixth Circuit disagreed, holding that Kentucky’s established exception allowing belated appeals when counsel fails to file on time kept Welch’s post-conviction case pending and paused the one-year filing deadline under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
The dispute in brief
Ricky Lee Welch was convicted by a Kentucky jury in 2017 of robbery, kidnapping, burglary, and being a persistent felony offender. The court sentenced him to 50 years in prison, and the Kentucky Supreme Court later rejected his direct appeal.
Welch then sought post-conviction relief in Kentucky courts. In June 2019, he filed a motion to vacate his conviction, arguing that his trial lawyer had provided constitutionally ineffective representation. The state trial court appointed counsel, held an evidentiary hearing, and denied the motion in May 2020.
Under Kentucky rules, a party generally has 30 days to appeal such a decision. Welch’s appointed attorney did not file a notice of appeal within that deadline, later explaining that the oversight occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
About six weeks after the deadline, Welch filed a motion asking the court to allow a belated appeal. Kentucky law recognizes such appeals when the failure to file on time results from ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Kentucky court granted the motion and allowed the appeal to proceed. The state appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief in October 2022, and the Kentucky Supreme Court declined further review in June 2023.
Welch then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 28, 2023, again alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
A federal district court dismissed the petition as time-barred, concluding that the one-year federal statute of limitations had expired because Welch’s appeal had not been filed within the ordinary 30-day period.
Welch appealed that ruling to the Sixth Circuit.
What the court decided
The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal, concluding that Welch’s federal habeas petition was timely filed.
The court held that Welch’s state post-conviction proceedings remained “pending” for purposes of AEDPA’s tolling provision because his appeal qualified under a recognized exception to Kentucky’s filing deadline.
Since the Kentucky courts accepted and heard the belated appeal under that exception, the federal one-year limitations period remained tolled during the state appellate process.
The Sixth Circuit therefore remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Welch’s federal habeas claims to proceed in the district court.
How the court got there
The dispute turned on how AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations interacts with state post-conviction procedures.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), prisoners generally have one year after their conviction becomes final to file a federal habeas petition. The statute pauses that clock while a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review” remains pending.
Interpreting “pending”
The Sixth Circuit relied on Supreme Court precedent interpreting the meaning of “pending” in this context.
In Carey v. Saffold, the Supreme Court explained that a case remains pending while the ordinary state collateral review process continues, including the period between lower-court decisions and appeals.
But the Court has also clarified that an appeal filed in an untimely manner does not keep a case pending for purposes of AEDPA tolling, even if the state court later considers the merits of the claim.
That framework made the key question in Welch’s case straightforward: whether his delayed appeal counted as timely under Kentucky law.
Kentucky’s belated-appeal exception
Kentucky appellate rules generally require appeals to be filed within 30 days. However, the rules also permit courts to grant relief recognized by state case law, including exceptions to the standard deadline.
One long-established exception allows a belated appeal when the failure to meet the filing deadline results from ineffective assistance of counsel. The Kentucky Supreme Court first recognized this principle in Commonwealth v. Wine and later extended it to post-conviction proceedings in Moore v. Commonwealth.
Because the Kentucky court granted Welch’s motion for a belated appeal under this framework, the Sixth Circuit concluded that his appeal qualified under a recognized exception, keeping the post-conviction proceedings pending for federal habeas purposes.
Function over labels
The Commonwealth argued that belated appeals should still be treated as untimely for federal tolling purposes.
The Sixth Circuit rejected that view, explaining that federal courts must consider how a state procedure actually functions, rather than relying on the labels used to describe it.
Under Kentucky law, appellate courts generally cannot hear an appeal filed outside the deadline unless a recognized exception applies. Because the Kentucky court accepted and heard Welch’s appeal, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the exception applied, and that the appeal satisfied Kentucky’s timing rules, keeping the post-conviction case pending for AEDPA purposes.
Consistency with prior appellate decisions
The Sixth Circuit also looked to its own prior decisions in other states for guidance.
In DiCenzi v. Rose and Board v. Bradshaw, the court held that Ohio’s delayed-appeal procedures toll AEDPA’s limitations period while the motion and resulting appeal are pending.
Similarly, other federal appellate courts have reached the same conclusion when state law allows recognized exceptions for late-filed appeals. These precedents reinforced the Sixth Circuit’s view that procedural mechanisms like Kentucky’s belated-appeal exception can pause the federal habeas clock.
Calculating the timeline
After confirming that Welch’s belated appeal could toll the federal deadline, the Sixth Circuit reviewed the timeline of his filings.
Welch’s conviction became final in March 2019. He filed his state collateral challenge in June 2019, which paused the federal one-year clock after 96 days had already passed.
When the trial court denied relief, the clock resumed until the ordinary appeal deadline expired. Welch then filed his motion for a belated appeal 44 days later, which again paused the federal limitations period. By that point, a total of 140 days had elapsed.
The clock remained paused throughout the state appellate process. When the Kentucky Supreme Court declined review in June 2023, the federal clock restarted. Welch filed his habeas petition 50 days later, bringing the total elapsed time to 190 days—well within AEDPA’s one-year limit.
Limits of belated appeals
The Sixth Circuit emphasized that belated appeals can pause the federal statute of limitations, but they cannot restart it once the one-year period has already expired.
If AEDPA’s deadline has passed before a prisoner seeks a belated appeal, the procedure does not revive the federal limitations period, and the habeas petition remains time-barred.
Key takeaways for business
-
State appeal exceptions affect federal deadlines. When state courts recognize procedural exceptions, such as belated appeals, they can pause federal filing deadlines for habeas petitions.
-
Function matters more than labels. Federal courts focus on how state procedures operate in practice, not the terminology used to describe them.
-
Timing disputes can determine case viability. Statutes of limitation and tolling rules may decide whether a claim can proceed at all, making careful timeline tracking essential in post-conviction and appellate litigation.
-
Belated appeals pause, but do not revive, deadlines. Delayed appeals can toll AEDPA’s one-year clock only if it has not already expired.
-
State procedural law shapes federal habeas strategy. Lawyers evaluating federal habeas filings must consider how state appellate rules and recognized exceptions interact with federal statutes.
What happens next
The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Welch’s federal habeas petition may now proceed in the district court. The Sixth Circuit’s decision does not address the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Case details
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Date: March 9, 2026
Case name: Ricky Lee Welch v. Laura Plappert
Docket number: 24-6022
Area of law: Criminal appeal / federal habeas procedure
Result: District court ruling reversed; habeas petition deemed timely
People Also Ask
What is a federal habeas corpus petition?
A federal habeas corpus petition allows a prisoner to challenge the legality of a state conviction in federal court. It usually alleges constitutional violations during the criminal proceedings.
What is the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations?
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act requires most federal habeas petitions to be filed within one year after a state conviction becomes final. Certain state post-conviction proceedings can pause the clock.
What does it mean for a case to be “pending” under AEDPA?
A case is “pending” while the normal state collateral review process is ongoing. This can include appeals, provided they comply with state procedural rules or recognized exceptions.
What is a belated appeal in criminal cases?
A belated appeal is a request to file an appeal after the standard deadline has passed. Courts may allow it when the delay results from circumstances such as ineffective assistance of counsel.
Did the Sixth Circuit overturn Welch’s conviction?
No. The Sixth Circuit addressed only whether Welch’s federal habeas petition was timely. The merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim were not decided.