Bevan v. State of Utah
670 F. App'x 664
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- John D. Bevan pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced on April 1, 2008. He did not file a direct appeal within the 30‑day deadline.
- Bevan sought and litigated state post-conviction relief in 2010, which was unsuccessful.
- He filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in July 2013 raising mental-state, newly discovered evidence, involuntariness of plea, intoxication, inability to assist counsel, Miranda, and ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes a one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Bevan’s judgment became final on May 1, 2008, when his direct-appeal window closed.
- The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred; Bevan sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal that procedural ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under § 2244(d)(1)(A)/(D) | Bevan contends claims are timely based on discovery of new evidence around sentencing and that § 2244(d)(1)(D) may govern. | The limitations period began when the judgment became final (May 1, 2008); petition filed July 2013 is untimely. | Court: Petition is time‑barred; latest filing deadline was about May 1, 2009. |
| Statutory tolling for state post‑conviction | Bevan argues state post‑conviction tolling should render his federal filing timely. | Tolling under § 2244(d)(2) only pauses a running clock; his 2010 state filing occurred after AEDPA expired. | Court: State post‑conviction did not save the late federal filing. |
| Equitable tolling (extraordinary circumstances) | Bevan implies circumstances (e.g., discovery issues) justify equitable tolling. | No evidence of diligent pursuit or extraordinary circumstances; Holland standard not met. | Court: Equitable tolling not available; Bevan failed to show diligence or extraordinary impediment. |
| Certificate of appealability standard | Bevan argues jurists could debate the procedural ruling. | District court’s time‑bar ruling is correct and not debatable. | Court: COA denied because reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA requires a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for COA when petition was denied on procedural grounds)
- Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2003) (statutory tolling pauses but does not restart AEDPA limitations)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)