Ronald Bert Smith v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
703 F.3d 1266
11th Cir.2012Background
- Smith filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after state-court direct review, alleging death sentence errors; petition filed July 19, 2005, well beyond AEDPA’s one-year limit from final judgment (Oct. 2, 2000).
- AEDPA tolling applies when a properly filed state post-conviction petition is pending; Rule 32 petition time frame needed to toll federal deadline.
- In 2001–2002, EJI-assisted efforts led to a Rule 32 petition drafted and submitted to Alabama state court; fee payment and forma pauperis issues undefined.
- Rule 32 petition was submitted September 27, 2001, but failed to include the filing fee or forma pauperis form; fee was paid February 6, 2002, and petition deemed properly filed per Alabama rules.
- Alabama courts ultimately denied relief in May 2003; Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari July 15, 2005.
- Petitioner's equitable tolling claim hinges on alleged attorney misconduct and abandonment, including pro hac vice issues and Johnson’s drug-addiction–related problems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 32 petition was 'properly filed' within AEDPA's tolling provision | Smith argues the petition was properly filed when submitted September 27, 2001. | Smith's petition was not properly filed because the filing fee or forma pauperis motion was omitted. | No statutory tolling; petition not properly filed during AEDPA period. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies due to attorney misconduct | Massey and Johnson conduct constitutes extraordinary circumstances warranting tolling. | Attorney neglect alone does not justify tolling; abandonment not proven for Massey; Holland/Maples standards not met. | No equitable tolling; no extraordinary circumstances proven sufficient to toll. |
| Whether Massey’s and Johnson’s conduct constitutes abandonment warranting tolling under Maples | Conduct amounts to abandonment and egregious professional breach. | Massey recruited local counsel, filed petition, and paid fee; not abandonment; timing defects mere neglect. | No abandonment; no tolling based on abandonment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (U.S. 2012) (attorney abandonment can warrant equitable tolling when extraordinary)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (U.S. 2010) (extraordinary attorney conduct may justify tolling under Maples and Holland)
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (U.S. 2000) (proper filing defined by filing compliance with laws and rules)
- Hyde v. Alabama, 950 So.2d 344 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (Rule 32 petition filing requirements; formality matters for timing)
- Ex parte Carter, 807 So.2d 534 (Ala. 2001) (petition deemed improperly filed for missing filing fee or forma pauperis)