Dunn v. NENMDF, 1:19-cv-00499

In Feb 2013 Dunn shot and killed David Rogers; he pled guilty to second-degree murder under a plea agreement with no sentencing promise and was sentenced to 15 years plus one-year enhancements (including firearm and habitual-offender enhancements).
Two days after sentencing Dunn moved to withdraw his plea; that motion was denied. He later filed a state habeas (Mar 21, 2016) raising incompetence and ineffective assistance; the court denied relief but set aside the habitual-offender enhancement and an Amended Judgment was entered Apr 3, 2017.
Dunn filed a second state habeas (Dec 5, 2017), which was denied Dec 20, 2017; he filed an untimely notice of appeal Apr 30, 2018, which was treated as a certiorari petition and denied by the New Mexico Supreme Court on Jul 23, 2018.
Dunn filed a federal § 2254 petition in this Court on May 29, 2019. Respondents argued the petition was barred by AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations; the Court ordered limited briefing on timeliness.
The Court concluded that, even allowing statutory tolling for properly filed state petitions and giving Dunn the benefit of doubts about dates, more than one year elapsed before Dunn filed in federal court; it also rejected equitable tolling/newly discovered evidence (finding many of Dunn’s later submissions fabricated) and dismissed the § 2254 petition as time-barred, denied a certificate of appealability, and found pending motions moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under AEDPA §2244(d)	Dunn argues his claims are timely when tolling and newly discovered evidence are considered	Respondents say the AEDPA one-year expired and gaps after state proceedings and cert denial defeat timeliness	Petition dismissed as time-barred even with liberal tolling assumptions
Effect of state post-conviction filings (motion to withdraw plea; state habeas petitions)	Dunn contends his state filings tolled AEDPA and/or produced a new start date	Respondents say only properly filed state petitions toll; untimely appeal does not	Court treated some periods as tolled but concluded overall limitations period still exceeded one year
Equitable tolling / newly discovered evidence	Dunn asserts newly discovered evidence and prison mail problems justify equitable tolling	Respondents show the core evidence was available earlier; many later submissions fabricated; no extraordinary circumstances	Court denied equitable tolling; evidence not new and no diligence or extraordinary impediment shown
Certificate of Appealability (COA)	Dunn implicitly seeks review	Respondents oppose COA because claims are untimely and not substantial	COA denied (no substantial showing of constitutional violation)

United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2007) (district court may take judicial notice of public court records)
Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (state collateral-review application tolls AEDPA while pending)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling principles and when state proceedings conclude for AEDPA purposes)
Wade v. Battle, 379 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2004) (state procedural rules determine when state post-conviction proceedings are complete)
Aguilera v. Kirkpatrick, 241 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 2001) (timeliness dismissals under AEDPA appropriately considered under Rule 12(b)(6))
Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2003) (same equitable tolling standard)
Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976 (10th Cir. 1998) (ignorance of law or lack of counsel does not excuse AEDPA delay)