Tag Archives: habeas corpus

A Kinder, Gentler Court for Federal Habeas Petitioners? Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549 (2010)

Posted by —

Since my previous post on the United States Supreme Court case of Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63, I’ve been wondering if we are seeing a kinder, gentler Court, at least in the area of federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus.  I think the answer is yes.

If you took a few moments to read Maples, you’re familiar with the Court’s exercise of leniency toward Maples, which is somewhat rare in habeas cases.  (As I mentioned in my previous post, habeas petitioners are often penalized for mistakes made by their postconviction attorney).  You’d also recall that in Maples, the Court relied heavily on Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549 (2010).

Holland is another case where the Supreme Court also showed leniency toward a federal habeas petitioner.  In Holland, the Court held, for the first time, that (1) the one year statute of limitations contained in section 2244(d) (governing the filing of section 2254 federal habeas petitions challenging state court convictions) can be tolled for equitable reasons; and, (2) an attorney’s professional misconduct may, at times, constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to warrant equitable tolling.  See Maples, No. 10-63, slip op. at *13 (recalling holding of Holland).  Significantly, in Holland, the Court explicitly stated that the analysis employed by the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether an attorney’s misconduct might warrant equitable tolling was “too rigid.”  See Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2549.  While the Court didn’t reach the conclusion that the professional misconduct of Holland’s attorney rose to the level of “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to warrant equitable tolling, the Court did remand the case back to the Eleventh Circuit for such a determination.  See Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2565.  The Eleventh Circuit, in turn, remanded the matter back to the District Court for a possible evidentiary hearing on the issue.  See Holland v. Florida, 613 F.3d 1053 (11th Cir. 2010).  As of the date of this post, the status and disposition of Holland’s case in the District Court is unclear.  Westlaw does not show any further published opinions subsequent to the Eleventh Circuit remand at 613 F.3d 1053.  However, I suppose if you have time to kill, you could always check PACER for the status of Holland’s case.  His case originated locally, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and appears to be assigned case number No. 06-20182-CV-PAS (Judge Seitz).

While I have not yet had the time to review the 2,358 opinions which cite to Holland, I think it’s fair to say that Holland may have begun a new era in postconviction litigation.  While it’s true that habeas petitioners have long argued that they should not be held accountable for the mistakes of their lawyers, habeas petitioners now have a strong case to point to in support of such argument.

United States Supreme Court Issues Habeas Opinions in Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63, and Gonzalez v. Thaler, No. 10-895

Posted by —

You may recall that in a previous post dated October 4, 2011, I listed a few federal criminal and habeas cases that I thought South Florida criminal defense and criminal appeals lawyers might want to monitor this Term.  Well, so far, the Court has issued opinions in two of the cases.  They are:

MAPLES V. THOMAS, No. 10-63, (slip opinion dated January 18, 2012):   A win for the habeas petitioner!  Maples had been sentenced to death in Alabama and filed postconviction motions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.  While the postconviction motion was pending, the attorneys who had been handling Maples’ case left their firm (Sullivan & Cromwell of New York) for new employment, but never notified Maples of their departure, never moved to withdraw, and never moved to substitute counsel.  Maples lost his postconviction motion.  A copy of the court order was sent to Maples’ attorneys at their former firm, but the firm returned the mailings, unopened, to the Clerk of Court.  The Clerk attempted no further mailing, and Maples’ time for filing further appeals expired.  Maples’ subsequent federal habeas petition was denied by the United States District Court on procedural default grounds, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.  However, the United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, finding that Maples had shown the requisite “cause” to excuse the procedural default.  In the opinion, the Court described Maples being “blameless,” and, stated, to my amazement:

The sole question this Court has taken up for review is whether, on the extraordinary facts of Maples’ case,  there is “cause” to excuse the default.  Maples maintains that there is, for the lawyers he believed to be vigilantly representing him had abandoned the case without leave of court, without informing Maples they could no longer represent him, and without securing any recorded substitution of counsel.  We agree.  Abandoned by counsel, Maples was left unrepresented at a critical time for his state postconviction petition, and he lacked a clue of any need to protect himself pro se.  In these circumstances, no just system would lay the default at Maples’ death-cell door.  Satisfied that the requisite cause has been shown, we reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment.

Why was I amazed at that language?  Well, if you’re a criminal defense or criminal appeals lawyer who is familiar with habeas jurisprudence, you know that many times, the individual petitioners are penalized for their counsel’s procedural errors, notwithstanding the fact that the individual petitioners have little to no control over the acts of their attorney.  However, here, the Court recognized the practical reality of Maples’ situation, and showed him some leniency by allowing him the chance to litigate another postconviction motion.

GONZALEZ V. THALER, No. 10-895 (slip opinion dated January 10, 2012):  This is a very technical, and somewhat dry, opinion.  Although the issues specifically framed by the Court were ”(1) whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to adjudicate Gonzalez’s appeal, notwithstanding the §2253(c)(3) defect; and, (2) whether Gonzalez’s habeas petition was time barred under §2244(d)(1) due to the date on which his judgment became final,” the Court addressed several sub-issues, including (a) the effect of defects in certificates of appealability on the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court; (b) the meaning of the term “jurisdictional;” (c)  when a State court conviction becomes final for purposes of habeas review; and, (d) timeliness of habeas petitions.  The most lively portion of the opinion, as you could have guessed, is Justice Scalia’s dissent.  I may not agree with a lot of what Scalia writes, but I have to admit that it takes some truly special talent to make dry jurisdictional arguments worth reading!

Sirhan Sirhan files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Federal Court in Connection with Conviction for 1968 Murder of Robert F. Kennedy

Posted by —

For those South Florida criminal defense attorneys who follow Kennedy conspiracy theories, I came across an article you might want to check out.  Sirhan Sirhan was convicted of murdering then-Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, just after he won the California primary.   The article reports that in a habeas corpus petition filed in federal court in Los Angeles, attorneys for Sirhan Sirhan allege that he was convicted based on prosecutorial misconduct: namely, that someone switched a bullet in evidence at trial to win the conviction.  Forensic evidence allegedly supports the switched bullet theory.  While the report notes that in the habeas petition, attorneys for Sirhan Sirhan acknowledge that habeas petitions are difficult to win, the attorneys also request, in the alternative, that the court conduct an evidentiary hearing to reexamine the case.

It will be interesting to see what the Court will do, particularly with the request for evidentiary hearing.  Timeliness issues aside, while evidentiary hearing are rarely held in habeas cases, they are sometimes conducted where claims of prosecutorial misconduct are raised.  We’ll have to keep our eyes on this one.

Notice of Appeal is Filed in Death Penalty Case of Evans v. McNeil, No. 08-14402-CIV-JEM

Posted by —

It’s Friday, so I thought I’d post something quick: on October 14, 2011, a notice of appeal was finally filed in Florida’s death penalty case of Evans v. Tucker (previously Evans v. McNeil), No. 08-14402-CIV-JEM.  Those of you who read my blog know that this is the case where the Federal Court granted, in part, a petition for habeas corpus based on the finding that Florida’s death penalty scheme is unconstitutional.  Now that the notice of appeal has finally been filed, the case is heading to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  I’ll be sure to keep you posted.

Eleventh Circuit Rules that Sentence of Life Without Parole for People Who Commit Crime of Murder While a Juvenile Does not Violate Constitution

Posted by —

In the case of Kenneth Loggins v. Thomas, No. 09-13267, 2011 WL 3903402 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2011), the Eleventh Circuit held that sentencing a person to life without parole for committing a homicide while under the age of 18 (a juvenile) does not violate the United States Constitution. While the 61 page opinion is lengthy, the Court dealt with some important issues.

As for the facts, a word of warning: the murder, which Loggins and several friends committed when he was 17, is quite brutal, and the Eleventh does not hold back in its description of the crime.  Loggins’ original sentence of death was reversed in light of the United States Supreme Court opinion of Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (holding that it is unconstitutional to execute criminals who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes).  After Loggins was resentenced to life without parole, he appealed that sentence, arguing that the sentence was unconstitutional.  Loggins lost all his appeals in the Alabama state courts, and eventually filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under section 2254 in Federal Court, raising the same issue.  The District Court denied Loggins’ 2254 petition, and he appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

The Court’s analysis of the core issue, the constitutionality of a sentence of life without parole for the crime of homicide committed while a juvenile, begins on page 35.  Although Loggins argued that there was a national and international consensus against such a sentence, the Court quickly rejected such arguments based on some interesting criminal sentencing statistics.  As a Florida criminal appeals attorney, I was saddened to read, on page 45, that Florida stands out as the State that has the highest number of people sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide crimes committed while the people were juveniles.  Out of the 123 inmates imprisoned nationwide, 77 are imprisoned in Florida.

In addition to the main issue of the constitutionality of the sentence of life without parole, the Loggins opinion is also worth reading because it contains a good discussion of other issues that arise in 2254 habeas proceedings, such as the deference owed to State court decisions, whether claims were adjudicated on the merits, what constitutes clearly established federal law, and retroactivity.

Still Waiting for Order in Evans v. McNeil, 08-14402-CIV-JEM

Posted by —

0

For any criminal attorneys who have some time on their hands while we wait to see how the Court will rule on the State of Florida’s motion to reconsider, I thought you might like to read the Court’s Order on the petition for writ of habeas corpus.  You can find it here.  A word of warning: the Order is long.  The discussion of the constitutionality of the death penalty scheme runs from pages 78-93.

Meanwhile, according to an article posted in the Miami Herald on June 22, 2011, this is the first time a Court has declared the Florida death penalty scheme unconstitutional.  If the Court maintains its ruling, and the State of Florida appeals to the Eleventh Circuit, as Attorney General Pam Bondi has stated will likely be done, such an appeal could set the stage for the case to make its way to the United States Supreme Court.

Habeas Corpus Relief in Federal Court

Posted by —

0

Persons convicted in State court proceedings have several options available to them after they are convicted.  These options include (1) filing a direct appeal in a court of appeal; (2) filing a postconviction motion in the trial court, such as a motion to withdraw a plea, or a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence; and, (3) filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Federal court.  Persons convicted in Federal court also have the same types of options.

Habeas corpus proceedings are quasi-civil in nature.  Although the conviction being attacked is criminal, and the caselaw surrounding habeas issues can overlap into the criminal arena, the proceedings occur in a civil context, and many of the procedural rules are civil in nature.  As a result, although the Government or the State may have had to carry the burden in the criminal phase of the proceedings, the burden often shifts to the petitioner during habeas proceedings.

For those wishing to consider filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the United States Code contains numerous statutes and rules that should be consulted beforehand.  These sections can be found at 28 U.S.C. secs. 2241-2266.  Generally, while persons attacking State court convictions file petitions under section 2254, persons attacking Federal court convictions file motions under section 2255.  Some of the topics addressed by the statutory sections include (1) the Court’s power to grant the writ and requirements of petitions (secs. 2241 and 2242); (2) procedural matters, such as compiling the record, evidence, and hearings (secs. 2243 and 2245-2250); (3) indigent petitioners (sec. 2250); (4) the one year statute of limitations (sec. 2244(d)(1)); (5) successive petitions (sec. 2244); (6) stays of state court proceedings (sec. 2251); (7) the role of the Attorney General in proceedings attacking state court convictions (sec. 2252); and, (8) appeals of decisions on petitions and certificates of appealability (sec. 2253).  In addition, counsel should note that there are specific Rules governing habeas proceedings under both sections 2254 and 2255.   Rules 1-12 Governing 2254 Cases and Rules 1-12 Governing 2255 Proceedings can be found in the United States Code immediately following the statutory sections.  A form petition for filing under section 2254 and a form motion for filing under section 2255 can also be found immediately after Rule 12 of the 2254 and 2255 Rules.

Persons convicted of capital crimes or their attorneys should consult the Special Habeas Corpus Procedures in Capital Cases, found at 28 U.S.C. secs. 2261-2266.