Miguel Williams v. Wendy Kelley
830 F.3d 770
8th Cir.2016Background
- In Feb 2012 Miguel J. Williams was convicted in Pulaski County, Arkansas of aggravated residential burglary and aggravated robbery and sentenced to 300 months. A judgment was entered March 16, 2012; an amended judgment (triggering the 30-day appeal window) issued March 27, 2012.
- Trial counsel Darrell Brown declined to handle an appeal, provided blank appeal forms, and withdrew on April 9, 2012. Williams’s mother hired attorney John Stratford, paid about $1,500 up front and monthly payments toward a $4,000 retainer.
- Stratford (with consultant Craig Lambert) failed to file a timely notice of appeal or timely pursue state remedies; Williams filed a pro se application for belated appeal (ghostwritten by Stratford/Lambert) that was initially rejected for procedural defects and ultimately denied by the Arkansas Supreme Court on June 6, 2013.
- Stratford did not advise Williams about the federal one‑year habeas limitation or timely file a federal petition; Williams took no independent action after January 2013 and did not file a federal habeas petition until December 2013 (ghostwritten by Stratford/Lambert).
- The district court held Williams’s federal habeas petition time‑barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) because Williams failed to pursue his rights diligently; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling of the §2244(d) limitations period applies | Williams: hiring Stratford and relying on counsel equitably tolls the one‑year period; Stratford’s misconduct should excuse delay | Respondent: Williams failed to pursue habeas rights diligently after Stratford’s failures became apparent | No tolling — Williams did not act with requisite diligence, petition is time‑barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligent pursuit and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing)
- Muhammad v. United States, 735 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2013) (failure to act when counsel is unresponsive can show lack of diligence)