Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Florida state court. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The Supreme Court denied P's petition for certiorari and the 1-year AEDPA limitations clock began to run. P filed a pro se federal habeas corpus petition, which was approximately five weeks late under the 1-year statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). On November 7, 2001, Florida (D) appointed attorney Bradley Collins to represent P in all state and federal postconviction proceedings. By September 19, 2002--316 days after his appointment and 12 days before the 1-year AEDPA limitations period expired--Collins, acting on P's behalf, filed a motion for postconviction relief in the state trial court. That filing automatically stopped the running of the AEDPA limitations period, § 2244(d)(2), with, as we have said, 12 days left on the clock. For the next three years, P's petition remained pending in the state courts. P wrote Collins letters asking him to make certain that all of his claims would be preserved for any subsequent federal habeas corpus review. Collins wrote back, stating, “I would like to reassure you that we are aware of state-time limitations and federal exhaustion requirements.” He also said that he would “present . . . to the . . . federal courts” any of P's claims that the state courts denied. In a second letter Collins added, “should your Motion for Post-Conviction Relief be denied” by the state courts, “your state habeas corpus claims will then be ripe for presentation in a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court.” In mid-May 2003, the state trial court denied P relief, and Collins appealed that denial to the Florida Supreme Court. Almost two years later, in February 2005, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case. During that 2-year period, relations between Collins and P began to break down. P, unhappy with this lack of communication, twice wrote to the Florida Supreme Court, asking it to remove Collins from his case. P informed the court that Collins had “not kept [him] updated on the status of [his] capital case” and that P had “not seen or spoken to” Collins “since April 2003.” The State responded that P could not file any pro se papers with the court while he was represented by counsel, including papers seeking new counsel. Collins argued P's appeal before the Florida Supreme Court on February 10, 2005. Shortly thereafter, P wrote to Collins emphasizing the importance of filing a timely petition for habeas corpus in federal court once the Florida Supreme Court issued its ruling. In November 2005, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision denying P relief. On December 1, 2005, the court issued its mandate, making its decision final. 539 F.3d, at 1337. At that point, the AEDPA federal habeas clock again began to tick--with 12 days left on the 1-year meter. Four weeks after the AEDPA time limit expired, on January 9, 2006, P, still unaware of the Florida Supreme Court ruling issued in his case two months earlier, wrote Collins a third letter. It asked for the [necessary information] . . . so that I can determine when the deadline will be to file my 28 U.S.C. Rule 2254 Federal Habeas Corpus Petition, in accordance with all United States Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit case law and applicable 'Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act,' if my appeals before the Supreme Court of Florida are denied. Collins did not answer. On January 18, 2006, P learned for the first time that the Florida Supreme Court had issued a final determination in his case and that its mandate had issued--five weeks prior. He immediately wrote out his own pro se federal habeas petition and mailed it to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida the next day. The Federal District Court held that the facts did not warrant equitable tolling. The 11th Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co