Alexander v. Shearin
1:12-cv-01388
D. MarylandOct 12, 2012Background
- Alexander was convicted of first degree murder after a bench trial in Maryland on September 26, 2003 and sentenced to life.
- Direct appeal affirmed; Maryland Court of Appeals denied further review; conviction final on September 15, 2005.
- Alexander filed state post-conviction relief on March 19, 2008, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Circuit Court denied post-conviction relief on October 8, 2010; direct appeal denied summarily on July 15, 2011; mandate issued August 15, 2011.
- Alexander filed federal habeas petition later; government argues petition untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
- Court holds the federal filing deadline was September 15, 2006; no timely tolling during initial one-year period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely filed. | Alexander argues tolling due to attorney failure. | Respondents contend no timely tolling and petition untimely. | Untimely; no tolling due to post-conviction filing timing. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies based on counsel's failure to preserve federal rights. | Alexander claims Holland-like extraordinary circumstances warrant tolling. | Ravenell's conduct did not preserve federal rights; Holland distinction applies only where counsel negligent or appointed. | Not entitled to equitable tolling; Holland does not control facts here. |
| Whether post-conviction filing tolled the limitations period. | State post-conviction timely and thus tolled federal clock. | Post-conviction was late and did not toll the federal deadline. | No tolling; timing did not extend the federal deadline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002) (tolling requires external circumstance causing delay)
- Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000) (exceptional circumstances for tolling)
- Rouse v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) (coherence with Slack v. Daniel standard for COA)
- Slack v. Daniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (requirement for COA on procedural rulings)