Criner v. Secretary Florida Department Of Corrections (Duval County)
3:21-cv-01160
M.D. Fla.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Takoya Dominic Criner, serving a life sentence for two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2005 conviction.
- Criner appealed through multiple levels of state court, filing a direct appeal and subsequent postconviction motions, mostly arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and procedural errors.
- His first postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was filed by an attorney but styled as pro se, covering issues already raised on direct appeal; Criner later argued he neither signed nor authorized this filing.
- Courts repeatedly found his subsequent motions either procedurally barred, untimely, or successive, though one was ultimately remanded for consideration of an ineffective assistance claim overlooked earlier.
- Criner argued his federal habeas petition was timely or alternatively should be excused from the limitations period due to egregious attorney misconduct (both postconviction attorneys were later disbarred), but respondents argued his petition was untimely and not entitled to tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Criner's Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did conviction become final for AEDPA timing | Final on March 7, 2007 (90 days after rehearing denial); entitled to time to seek US Supreme Court review | Final on January 8, 2007 (30 days after rehearing denial); must seek FL Supreme Ct. | Court: January 8, 2007 controls; AEDPA expired |
| Equitable tolling for attorney misconduct | Entitled to tolling due to constructive abandonment and unethical conduct by counsel | Neither attorney's conduct rises to "extraordinary circumstances"; no diligence | Court: No extraordinary circumstances; not tolled |
| Tolling by state postconviction filings | Motions and efforts to recall mandate should toll AEDPA period | After AEDPA expired, no period left to toll | Court: No tolling past AEDPA expiration |
| Actual innocence or other gateway claims | Did not explicitly raise; sought relief mainly through attorney error/equitable tolling | Not applicable; only timeliness and tolling at issue | Court: No gateway claim alleged; action untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Chamblee v. Florida, 905 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2018) (federal habeas courts must follow state law to determine finality for AEDPA timing)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling of habeas deadline requires both diligence and extraordinary circumstances; attorney negligence alone insufficient)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012) (attorney abandonment can constitute cause to excuse procedural default)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (reiterating high standard for equitable tolling and diligence requirement)
- Cadet v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 853 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2017) (distinguishes ordinary negligence from abandonment for equitable tolling)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual innocence can excuse time bar but was not asserted here)