Marcus Conner v. Dennis Reagle, 82 F.4th 542

Marcus Conner was convicted of drug offenses after a trial held roughly 1,029 days after charging; he did not obtain a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial objection from trial counsel.
On direct appeal the speedy-trial claim was deemed forfeited; Conner later raised an ineffective-assistance claim in state postconviction proceedings, which was denied on the merits.
After the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer, Conner’s postconviction lawyer (Sauer) consulted a habeas practitioner and then told Conner to delay filing a federal habeas petition because counsel planned to file a certiorari petition and believed that would toll the §2244(d)(1) one-year clock.
That advice was incorrect under Lawrence v. Florida; a certiorari petition filed after state postconviction proceedings do not toll the habeas clock while pending; the one-year period had expired before the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert.
Conner filed a pro se §2254 petition after the Supreme Court denied cert.; the district court dismissed it as untimely and declined to equitably toll the deadline based on his postconviction counsel’s erroneous advice.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding attorney miscalculation does not constitute the extraordinary, external circumstance required for equitable tolling and therefore did not reach the ineffective-assistance claim’s merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the §2244(d)(1) one-year limitations period is subject to equitable tolling because postconviction counsel erroneously advised that a certiorari petition would toll the clock	Conner: Sauer’s mistaken advice was an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing and thus warrants equitable tolling	Reagle: Attorney negligence or miscalculation is not an extraordinary external obstacle; binding precedent forecloses tolling here	No equitable tolling; counsel’s mistake is garden-variety negligence and not an external extraordinary circumstance
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim	Conner: Trial counsel’s failure forfeited/denied his speedy-trial right; ineffective assistance warrants relief	Reagle: Claim was forfeited and/or meritless; in any event, untimeliness bars federal review	Court did not reach merits because petition was untimely; affirmed dismissal on timeliness grounds

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and an extraordinary circumstance; attorney negligence generally insufficient)
Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (certiorari filed after state postconviction proceedings does not toll habeas limitations while pending)
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) (certiorari filed at conclusion of direct review tolls habeas clock)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (framework for assessing Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claims)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (pretrial delay prejudice extends beyond impairment of defense)
Lombardo v. United States, 860 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2017) (attorney mistake in calculating filing deadline is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling)
Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012) (acts and omissions of counsel may be charged to the client in certain contexts)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default principles)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited exception to procedural default for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (extension of Martinez in certain state-law contexts)