Martinez v. Davis
5:16-cv-01305
W.D. Tex.May 12, 2017Background
- Martinez was indicted in August 2013 in Bexar County for felony DWI with enhancement paragraphs; he pleaded nolo contendere and received a 7-year sentence under a plea agreement.
- He waived direct appeal; the Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in August 2014. He obtained extensions to file a petition for discretionary review (PDR) up to February 2, 2015, but did not file a PDR.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an Official Notice on February 27, 2015, that the time to file a PDR had expired; the opinion treats February 2, 2015, as the conviction’s finality date for AEDPA purposes.
- Martinez filed a state habeas application on February 26, 2016, which was denied on August 10, 2016; he placed his federal § 2254 petition in the prison mail system on December 16, 2016.
- Respondent moved to dismiss the federal petition as barred by AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations; the district court granted the motion and dismissed the petition with prejudice and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez’s § 2254 petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) | Martinez contends equitable or statutory tolling excuses the lateness; various barriers prevented timely filing | The conviction became final Feb. 2, 2015; AEDPA’s one-year period expired Feb. 2, 2016; state habeas filed after expiration so no statutory tolling; petition is untimely | Petition is untimely under § 2244(d)(1); dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Martinez’s state habeas tolled the AEDPA period under § 2244(d)(2) | State habeas pending tolled limitations | State habeas was filed Feb. 26, 2016 — after AEDPA deadline — so it did not toll | No statutory tolling; state filing was untimely to save federal filing |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Martinez cites lack of records, counsel cooperation, inadequate law library, harassment, lack of funds, ignorance of law | These circumstances are typical and do not show extraordinary diligence or rare exceptional circumstances | Equitable tolling denied; petitioner failed to show due diligence and extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue | Martinez argues merits or procedural error justify appeal | Court: petitioner did not make a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right | COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Palacios v. Stephens, 723 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (AEDPA finality and start date principles)
- Gonzales v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (conviction becomes final when time for seeking state-highest-court review expires)
- Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2000) (state collateral filings made after AEDPA deadline do not toll the limitations period)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (equitable tolling/actual innocence gateway standard referenced for tolling principles)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Tiner v. Treon, 232 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 2000) (denial of records by state/attorney not necessarily extraordinary)
- Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2000) (inadequate prison law library and lack of notice of AEDPA are not extraordinary)
- Manning v. Epps, 688 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2012) (garden-variety neglect and ignorance do not warrant equitable tolling)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for issuing a certificate of appealability)