Hall v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23784
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hall was convicted in Ohio of aggravated robbery, two rapes, two kidnappings, and felonious assault, receiving a maximum 27-year term on August 15, 2005.
- Appointed counsel Harrison represented Hall on direct appeal; Hall obtained a transcript in December 2005 and timely appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
- Hall alleged Harrison acted unprofessionally by failing to provide the transcript and by filing the opening brief without consulting him; Hall later proceeded pro se after Harrison withdrew.
- Hall missed the September 29, 2006 Ohio Supreme Court appeal deadline, triggering the start of the AEDPA one-year habeas clock on September 30, 2006.
- Hall filed a motion for a delayed appeal on October 4, 2006; the Ohio Supreme Court stamped it filed November 27, 2006, tolling AEDPA's clock starting November 27, 2006.
- The AEDPA clock remained tolled during Ohio Supreme Court proceedings; after denial of reconsideration on March 14, 2007, the clock resumed and expired January 16, 2008, with Hall not timely filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies under AEDPA | Hall contends lack of transcript access and related factors justify tolling. | State argues no extraordinary circumstances and Hall was not diligent. | Holland two-part test governs; tolling denied. |
| Whether lack of trial-transcript access constitutes an extraordinary circumstance | Hall relies on transcript unavailability to excuse late filing. | Transcript access is not required to file a petition; other factors show lack of diligence. | Not an extraordinary circumstance; tolling denied. |
| Whether the two-month delay between submitting a state motion and filing with the Ohio Supreme Court creates an extraordinary circumstance | Unexplained delay meant Hall believed filing was timely. | State rules and absence of notice negate tolling; delay is not extraordinary. | Delay does not warrant equitable tolling; waiver applied. |
| Whether reliance on Abela v. Martin (overruled by Lawrence) supports tolling | Hall relied on Abela to toll for 90 days after Lawrence changed the rule. | Abela reliance is untimely and waived; Lawrence controls. | Abela argument waived; no tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (two-part equitable-tolling test: diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2001) (five-factor test prior to Holland; equitable tolling framework)
- Robinson v. Easterling, 424 F. App'x 439 (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished; notes Holland-based framework)
- Solomon v. United States, 467 F.3d 928 (6th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes external vs. diligence-based delays)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (overruled Abela's 90-day tolling rule)
- Abela v. Martin, 348 F.3d 164 (6th Cir. 2003) (en banc; tolling through 90 days after state ruling)
- Sherwood v. Prelesnik, 579 F.3d 581 (6th Cir. 2009) (reliance on Abela distinguished after Lawrence)
- Miller v. Collins, 305 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2002) (notice-based tolling after delayed state ruling)
- Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2001) (transcript access not required for filing habeas petition)
- Donovan v. Maine, 276 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2002) (lack of transcript access not a tolling basis)
- Lloyd v. Van Natta, 296 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2002) (transcript access not grounds for tolling)
- Inglesias v. Davis, F. App’x (2009) (unpublished; transcript access insufficient for tolling)