Mullins v. Allbaugh
663 F. App'x 628
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mullins pled guilty to first-degree murder on December 22, 2002, and was sentenced to life without parole on January 22, 2003.
- Mullins mailed a letter to the trial judge (postmarked Feb. 3, 2003; received Feb. 5; filed Feb. 18) asking to withdraw his plea; the trial court denied relief as untimely under the 10-day rule.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) dismissed Mullins’ direct appeal on May 7, 2003, citing failure to file a motion to withdraw plea within 10 days of sentencing (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. R. 4.2(A)).
- More than a decade later Mullins sought state post-conviction relief claiming he was denied an appeal through no fault of his own; state courts denied relief. He then filed a § 2254 petition in federal court on June 24, 2015.
- Oklahoma moved to dismiss as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); the district court granted dismissal and denied a certificate of appealability (COA). Mullins appealed to the Tenth Circuit seeking a COA.
Issues
| Issue | Mullins' Argument | Oklahoma's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mullins’ § 2254 petition is time-barred under § 2244(d)(1)(A) | Mullins contends he either timely filed a motion to withdraw plea (mailed via jail) or is entitled to an out-of-time appeal because trial counsel was ineffective, which would restart the § 2244 clock under Jimenez | Conviction became final when the 10-day window to withdraw plea expired; the one-year AEDPA limitations period ran from that finality and Mullins’ federal petition was untimely | The petition is time-barred; COA denied because reasonable jurists would not debate the procedural ruling |
| Whether Jimenez saves Mullins’ petition by restarting the limitations period if he is entitled to an out-of-time direct appeal | Mullins argues an out-of-time appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel would restart the one-year clock | Even assuming counsel was ineffective for the 10-day state deadline, that does not explain failure to file federal habeas within AEDPA’s one-year period; Jimenez is inapplicable to excuse AEDPA delay here | Jimenez reliance is misplaced; it does not overcome Mullins’ § 2244 untimeliness |
| Whether equitable tolling or an evidentiary hearing is warranted | Mullins requests equitable tolling and an evidentiary hearing to prove diligence and extraordinary circumstances (including multiple attorneys and alleged lack of access) | Mullins provided no specific facts showing diligence or extraordinary circumstances; he failed to adequately brief or support tolling request | Equitable tolling denied; no entitlement to an evidentiary hearing given inadequate, unsupported allegations |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying a COA | Mullins argues reasonable jurists could debate the procedural ruling and merits | District court found no substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right and that the timeliness ruling was not debatable | COA denied; case dismissed for lack of timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) (out-of-time state appeal can restart AEDPA limitations clock in certain circumstances)
- Loftis v. Chrisman, 812 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2016) (equitable tolling standards and deference to state-court timeliness determinations)
- Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976 (10th Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling requires specific factual showing of diligence)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for granting a certificate of appealability)
- Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) (state-court interpretations of state law bind federal habeas courts)
- Harris v. Dinwiddie, 642 F.3d 902 (10th Cir. 2011) (calculating AEDPA filing deadline when finality date falls on weekend/holiday)
- Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) (court may decline inadequately briefed arguments)