42 F.4th 940
8th Cir.2022Background
- In 2017 Odie pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin; the government filed a 21 U.S.C. § 851 information seeking an enhanced mandatory minimum based on a 2000 Illinois controlled-substance conviction.
- Odie’s written plea agreement included a promise not to challenge the § 851 enhancement; at the plea hearing defense counsel said Odie did not "specifically remember" the prior conviction but acknowledged it was valid. The court did not perform the § 851(b) colloquy.
- The PSR listed the 2000 Illinois conviction; at sentencing the defendant raised no objection and received a below-Guidelines 240‑month sentence in 2018; Odie did not appeal.
- In 2020 Odie filed a pro se § 2255 motion arguing his 2000 Illinois conviction cannot qualify as a § 851 predicate, relying on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in De La Torre (2019). He invoked § 2255(f)(4) (one‑year statute of limitations measured from discovery of supporting facts).
- The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion as time‑barred, holding De La Torre is a judicial decision (not a "new fact" under § 2255(f)(4)) and that equitable tolling did not apply; a COA was granted only on the timeliness issue.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: De La Torre does not supply a new fact under § 2255(f)(4), Odie’s petition is untimely, and equitable tolling is not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether De La Torre triggers § 2255(f)(4) so petition is timely | De La Torre revealed the "new fact" that Odie’s 2000 Illinois conviction cannot qualify as a § 851 predicate | De La Torre is a judicial decision, not a discoverable new fact; § 2255(f)(4) not triggered | Court: De La Torre is a judicial ruling, not a new fact; § 2255(f)(4) not triggered; petition time‑barred |
| Whether equitable tolling excuses the late filing | Odie claims diligence and extraordinary circumstances: missing § 851 colloquy, learning of De La Torre, and limited prison law library access | Government: Odie lacked diligence (could have appealed; had Lexis access); no affirmative government lulling or extraordinary obstacle | Court: Equitable tolling denied—Odie failed to show diligence or extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether dismissal raises a Suspension Clause problem | Odie contends AEDPA timing denies habeas | Government: No suspension where conviction is by a court of competent jurisdiction | Court: No Suspension Clause violation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. De La Torre, 940 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2019) (held Illinois § 570/402(c) broader than federal definition for § 851 purposes)
- E.J.R.E. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 2006) (a judicial decision is not a "new fact" under § 2255(f)(4))
- Ingram v. United States, 932 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2019) (explains new‑fact and diligence tests under § 2255(f)(4))
- Muhammad v. United States, 735 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2013) (discusses AEDPA one‑year limitations and equitable tolling)
- Deroo v. United States, 709 F.3d 1242 (8th Cir. 2013) (equitable tolling is an "exceedingly narrow" remedy)
- Riddle v. Kemna, 523 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (describes ‘‘lulling’’ doctrine permitting tolling when court conduct affirmatively misleads a petitioner)