Munroe v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 6:14-cv-00859

Petitioner Omar H. Munroe was convicted by a Florida jury of aggravated assault (lesser included of two attempted first‑degree murder counts) and aggravated battery with a firearm; court imposed aggregate 25‑year terms with one consecutive sentence.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions per curiam on April 15, 2008; judgment became final for AEDPA purposes on July 14, 2008 (90‑day certiorari period).
AEDPA’s one‑year limitations period began July 14, 2008, so the federal habeas deadline absent tolling was July 14, 2009.
Petitioner hired counsel on February 3, 2009, to file a Rule 3.850 motion; that state motion was not filed until January 12, 2010.
The district court found the Rule 3.850 filing came after AEDPA’s deadline (and thus did not statutorily toll the limitations period). The court considered equitable tolling for Feb 3–July 14, 2009 but concluded Petitioner failed to show diligence after July 14, 2009.
The federal habeas petition filed May 30, 2014 was therefore untimely and dismissed with prejudice; Certificate of Appealability denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under AEDPA §2244(d)	Petition timely because state postconviction efforts tolled the year	Conviction final July 14, 2008; §2244(d) year expired July 14, 2009 absent tolling	Petition untimely; state 3.850 filed after limitations period so did not statutorily toll
Equitable tolling for attorney conduct	Counsel’s promise to file and delay entitles Munroe to equitable tolling	Attorney negligence alone doesn’t justify tolling; petitioner must show diligence and extraordinary circumstances	Equitable tolling allowed only Feb 3–July 14, 2009; not beyond because petitioner lacked diligence after July 14, 2009
Relation‑back of state filing to tolling	3.850 filing preserved time if counsel delayed	3.850 was filed Jan 12, 2010, after AEDPA deadline—thus cannot toll	State collateral proceeding did not toll because it was filed after limitations expired
Certificate of Appealability (COA)	Claims debatable; COA appropriate	No reasonable jurists would debate procedural ruling or merits	COA denied; petitioner failed to make substantial showing of constitutional denial

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (AEDPA’s limitations period is subject to equitable tolling and sets standard)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (state collateral proceedings toll AEDPA only when filed during the limitations period)
Bond v. Moore, 309 F.3d 770 (11th Cir. 2002) (limitations period runs after certiorari period expires)
Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2000) (post‑conviction filed after expiration cannot toll AEDPA)
Cadet v. Florida Department of Corrections, 742 F.3d 473 (11th Cir. 2014) (attorney negligence does not amount to extraordinary circumstance; abandonment required)
San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) (causal connection required between extraordinary circumstance and late filing)
Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)