Holmes v. Spencer
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14548
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Holmes was convicted of second-degree murder in Massachusetts and sentenced to life imprisonment on May 1, 1998.
- Holmes contends he pled guilty based on ineffective assurances from counsel regarding a Rule 29 motion that could reduce his sentence if the prosecutor sought information.
- Holmes filed a Rule 29(a) motion to revise/revoke but the motion and affidavit lacked stated grounds and were deemed not properly filed under Massachusetts law.
- Holmes later filed a Rule 30 motion (August 14, 2000) to withdraw the guilty plea and obtain a new trial, which was pursued after discovery of the Rule 29 futility.
- State remedies were exhausted with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denying subsequent petitions by September 11, 2007.
- Holmes filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 9, 2008; the district court initially dismissed as untimely under AEDPA, with remand to consider equitable tolling.
- This court held that Rule 29 is a State post-conviction review and that the Rule 29 motion was not properly filed, but remanded to assess potential equitable tolling in light of Kholi and related decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 29 tolls AEDPA time as a proper state filing | Holmes argues Rule 29 tolls time as collateral review. | Respondents contend Rule 29 is not properly filed and tolling does not apply. | Rule 29 is tolling as State collateral review only if properly filed. |
| Whether discovery of the factual predicate for his claim starts AEDPA clock | Holmes could not know the factual predicate until 2000. | The factual predicate was known by 1998; discovery rule does not start later. | Factual predicate discovered by 1998; clock starts earlier, not August 2000. |
| Whether the Rule 30 motion saves timing, and whether grounds exist claim-by-claim | Rule 30 tolls when at least one claim is timely; consider claim-by-claim timeliness. | Rule 30 is a separate state review; not enough to salvage overall timeliness. | Grounds analysis may be required on a claim-by-claim basis; remand for development. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies given the Rule 29 filing and prisoner conditions | Equitable tolling due to misled filing practices and incarceration should apply. | Equitable tolling not warranted absent extraordinary circumstances and diligence. | Equitable tolling possible in light of Kholi but remand to develop record; majority rejects broad tolling, dissent treats it differently. |
| Whether the district court should consider equitable tolling due to the Rule 29 filing context post-Kholi | Kholi dictates tolling for a Rule 29-like filing; equity may apply. | Kholi requires proper filing; record inadequate to support tolling. | Remand to determine if equitable tolling applies, considering 1998-2000 filing context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brackett v. United States, 270 F.3d 60 (1st Cir.2001) (factual predicate vs. legal consequences in § 2244(d)(1)(D))
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (U.S. 2000) (proper filing for state post-conviction review)
- Kholi v. Wall, 582 F.3d 147 (1st Cir.2009) (tolls AEDPA by state post-conviction motion to reduce sentence)
- Wall v. Kholi, 131 S. Ct. 1278 (2011) (Supreme Court endorsement of tolling rule from Kholi)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S.2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Delaney v. Matesanz, 264 F.3d 7 (1st Cir.2001) (equitable tolling standards in the First Circuit)