Floyd Damren v. State of Florida
776 F.3d 816
11th Cir.2015Background
- Floyd Damren was convicted and sentenced to death in Florida; his convictions became final after the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 12, 1998, starting the AEDPA one-year federal habeas limitation period.
- Damren filed a state Rule 3.851 postconviction motion on November 9, 1998, which tolled the federal limitations period; Florida Supreme Court mandate issued February 24, 2003, restarting the one-year clock and leaving a 65-day window ending April 30, 2003.
- Court-appointed postconviction counsel Jeffrey Morrow, inexperienced in federal habeas practice, sought co-counsel and advice but did not reliably calculate the federal filing deadline; a certiorari attempt to the U.S. Supreme Court failed due to a filing error.
- Morrow filed an in forma pauperis motion in federal district court on May 14, 2003 (after the deadline) and the federal habeas petition on November 24, 2003.
- The District Court dismissed the petition as time-barred and denied equitable tolling after evidentiary hearings; the court issued a COA addressing only equitable tolling. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding attorney negligence did not amount to an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Damren's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Damren is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA §2244(d)(1) due to his appointed attorney's failure to determine the correct federal filing deadline | Morrow’s failure to finish or correctly compute the deadline was so egregious it qualifies as an "extraordinary circumstance," excusing late filing | Attorney negligence or miscalculation does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance; petitioner remains bound by counsel’s errors absent abandonment | Denied. The court held attorney negligence, even if inadequate, did not rise to abandonment or extraordinary circumstance required for equitable tolling under Holland and Cadet |
| Whether the appeal may proceed despite a COA that omitted specification of the underlying constitutional claim(s) | COA’s omission should not block review given full briefing and lengthy procedural history | COA defects are serious but relief can be granted in limited circumstances | Court exercised discretion to decide equitable tolling despite COA’s omission, citing efficiency and precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Cadet v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 742 F.3d 473 (attorney negligence does not qualify as extraordinary circumstance absent abandonment)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (attorney miscalculation is insufficient for equitable tolling)
- Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (AEDPA case begins with filing of petition, not other filings)
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (finality rule for convictions relevant to AEDPA deadline)