629 F.3d 1219
11th Cir.2011Background
- Gonzalez, a Florida death-row inmate, was convicted in 1994 of first-degree murder during an armed bank robbery.
- Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase.
- On remand, the trial court reimposed death; Florida Supreme Court later affirmed the death sentence in 2001.
- Gonzalez filed an incomplete shell post-conviction motion to toll AEDPA, then amended after the federal deadline, with state court denying merits.
- The district court denied habeas relief but granted a certificate on three issues, which the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely due to shell motion tolling | Gonzalez asserts shell motion related back to toll 2244(d)(2). | State argues cases foreclose relation back; AEDPA non-jurisdictional defense. | Gonzalezman's petition deemed potentially timely but no relief granted on merits. |
| Harmlessness of co-defendants' confessions to Gonzalez's guilt | Admission violated Confrontation Clause and could render guilt unreliable. | Guilt addressed by substantial independent evidence; error harmless for guilt. | No reversible error on guilt; admission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for guilt. |
| Effect of peremptory-challenge error on federal review | Denial of two peremptory challenges violated federal rights. | Peremptory challenges are state-created; no federal constitutional right to them. | No federal constitutional error; peremptory-challenge issue not reviewable on habeas. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gore v. State, 24 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2009) (relation back notion under Florida law discussed for 2244(d)(2))
- Melson v. Allen, 548 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 2008) (AEDPA timeliness defenses not jurisdictional; related holdings)
- Sibley v. Culliver, 377 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2004) (timeliness and related issues on AEDPA review)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 129 S.Ct. 1446 (2009) (no federal right to peremptory challenges; state-law issue)
- Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984) (state-law errors in sentencing not cognizable on habeas)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory challenges and race-based exclusions)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard applied to constitutional violations)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (actual prejudice standard for habeas review)
- Lovette v. State, 636 So.2d 1304 (Fla.1994) (felony murder under Florida law; corroborative context for guilt)