Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Inst.
673 F.3d 452
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Keeling was convicted in Ohio courts for aggravated robbery and related offenses and sentenced to over 21 years.
- He pursued direct appeal, which the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed in 2002; no timely further appeal to Ohio Supreme Court followed.
- Keeling pursued state post-conviction relief (Rule 29, Rule 33, and Rule 32.1) with varying results; final Ohio decisions denied relief by 2007.
- Keeling filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in March 2008, asserting four grounds for relief.
- The district court dismissed as untimely under AEDPA § 2244(d); Keeling challenged tolling and requested an evidentiary hearing.
- The Sixth Circuit granted a COA and ultimately affirmed, addressing timeliness, tolling, and related evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely under AEDPA. | Keeling contends Gonzalez tolls finality timing; Jimenez analysis applies. | Warden argues finality and statute ran August 2002, with no tolling applicable. | Petition untimely; final judgment date controls under Gonzalez. |
| Whether equitable tolling should apply to Keeling's petition. | Attorney failure to inform delayed filing constitutes extraordinary circumstance. | Delay attributable to lack of diligence; no extraordinary circumstances proven. | Equitable tolling denied; delay not reasonably diligent or beyond control. |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the grounds presented. | Some claims require factual development; hearing appropriate. | AEDPA limits hearings to record before state court; most claims adjudicated on merits. | No evidentiary hearing required for most claims; only potentially for未 adjudicated appellate counsel claim, which failed 2254(e)(2). |
| Whether the district court properly addressed the jurisdiction and COA sufficiency. | COA did not specify issues, but Gonzalez resolves jurisdiction. | COA defect would bar appeal absent Gonzalez resolution. | Gonzalez resolves jurisdiction; COA adequate. |
| Whether the state-court decisions and the timing of tolling affect the timeliness of ground four. | Keeling's Apprendi/Blakely/Foster claims may have later tolling. | Ground four untimely as start date mirrored ground one and not retroactively saved. | Ground four time-barred; start of limitations August 13, 2002. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012) (mandatory but nonjurisdictional COA interpretation; finality framework)
- Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) (delayed direct review timing can affect finality under 2244(d)(1)(A))
- Hall v. Warden, 662 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing district court habeas dismissals; equity tolling)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (two-part test for equitable tolling in § 2244(d))
- Pinholster v. Davis, 131 S. Ct. 1389 (2011) (AEDPA review limited to state-court record on merits)