Artis Whitehead v. State of Tennessee, 402 S.W.3d 615

Whitehead was convicted in Shelby County and the convictions were affirmed on direct appeal; the one-year post-conviction deadline began after final action by the highest state court (October 16, 2006).
Whitehead’s appellate attorney mistakenly calculated the deadline from the U.S. Supreme Court denial date (March 5, 2007) instead of the Tennessee final action date, resulting in an incorrect deadline of March 5, 2008 in a letter dated August 3, 2007.
Attorney failed to timely send Whitehead his case files, which impeded his ability to prepare a timely post-conviction petition; files arrived only near the actual deadline.
Whitehead filed a 32-page post-conviction petition on March 3, 2008 (mailed March 19, 2008), which the Shelby County Criminal Court dismissed as untimely on March 26, 2008.
Court of Criminal Appeals remanded to determine if counsel’s misrepresentation could toll the deadline, and later proceedings examined whether due process tolling applied under Holland/Maples-type analysis.
The Tennessee Supreme Court ultimately held that due process tolling applies where attorney abandonment or extraordinary circumstances prevent timely filing, ruling that the one-year statute should be tolled and remanding to proceed with Whitehead’s March 2008 petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process tolling applies to the post-conviction deadline.	Whitehead argues due process tolling is warranted due to attorney abandonment and misrepresentation.	State argues the deadline is strict and tolling is limited to the statutory exceptions and narrowly defined scenarios.	Yes; due process tolling warranted under Holland/Maples framework.
Whether attorney abandonment constitutes an extraordinary circumstance justifying tolling.	Abandonment (retention of files, delayed notification, and incorrect deadline) prevented timely filing.	Abandonment must be exceptionally egregious; mere negligence is insufficient.	Yes; collective attorney actions amounted to abandonment creating extraordinary circumstances.
Whether the Holland/Maples two-prong test should govern post-conviction tolling in Tennessee.	The test supports tolling when diligent pursuit exists and an extraordinary external obstacle prevents timely filing.	Tennessee should not expand tolling beyond narrowly defined exceptions.	Yes; adopt Holland/Maples two-prong framework for post-conviction tolling.
What standard of review applies to the post-conviction court’s findings on attorney conduct and diligence.	Trial court findings should support tolling due to credibility and factual determinations.	appellate review should preserve restraint while acknowledging due process concerns.	De novo review for legal questions; defer to underlying findings of fact.

Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (attorney misrepresentation can toll depending on circumstances)
Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (early tolling for procedural traps in post-conviction)
Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (later-arising claims and tolling framework)
Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (mental incompetence tolling for timely filing)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. Supreme Court (2010)) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (U.S. Supreme Court (2012)) (abandonment by attorney supplies extraordinary circumstances)
Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2003) (egregious attorney conduct can justify tolling)
Baldayaque v. United States, 338 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2003) (attorney misconduct can warrant equitable tolling)
Calderon v. United States District Court, 128 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1997) (abandonment leading to tolling of deadlines)
United States v. Martin, 408 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 2005) (misconduct with missing/retained papers supports tolling)