670 F.3d 729
6th Cir.2012Background
- Murad Williams pled guilty to unarmed robbery in Michigan in 2003 and received Holmes Youthful Trainee Act conditional probation with boot camp.
- He was 17 at the time; the underlying conduct was relatively minor and Williams had ADHD with limited education; he was 18 at sentencing in 2004.
- Williams violated boot camp terms in 2004, was sentenced to 1 to 15 years in prison, and served about six years with parole denials.
- He did not file a direct appeal; the judgment became final in May 2005 for AEDPA purposes, triggering the one-year limitations period.
- Williams filed a first post-conviction motion in November 2005 (denied January 2006); a second post-conviction motion followed in June 2006 but was deemed impermissible under Michigan law as a successive motion.
- Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal the first post-conviction denial and later dismissed the appeal of the second post-conviction denial; the Michigan Supreme Court denied related relief, and Williams filed a federal habeas petition in December 2007.
- The district court initially held the petition timely due to tolling from the pending second state motion, but the issue is whether that second motion was properly filed, affecting tolling; the court remanded for equitable tolling determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second post-conviction motion was properly filed | Williams argues the second motion tolls AEDPA. | State contends the second motion was not properly filed because Michigan bars second or successive motions absent limited exceptions. | No; second motion not properly filed, thus not tolling. |
| Effect of Pace v. DiGuglielmo on Michigan's rule | Pace supports tolling for untimely motions if exceptions apply. | Michigan's prohibition on successive motions functions as a filing condition similar to Pace’s reasoning. | Pace applies; untimely second motion cannot toll AEDPA. |
| Whether the untimeliness can be equitably tolled | Equitable tolling could render the petition timely. | Equitable tolling must be decided by the district court given fact-intensive inquiry. | Remanded for the district court to determine equitable tolling in the first instance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (untimely post-conviction motion not properly filed; tolling depends on filing)
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (U.S. 2000) (definition of properly filed as delivery/acceptance at filing)
- Geno v. Metrish, 393 F. App’x 299 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished (6th Cir.) hold that a denied successive state motion tolls do not toll AEDPA)
- Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2002) (unpermitted second state post-conviction motion not necessarily properly filed; tolling discuss)