Stacy King v. Larry Norris
666 F.3d 1132
8th Cir.2012Background
- King was convicted on three counts of cocaine delivery in Arkansas on January 20, 2006, and sentenced to three consecutive 60-year terms as a habitual offender.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on December 5, 2007; its mandate followed on December 27, 2007.
- King filed a Rule 37 post-conviction petition on January 22, 2008, which the circuit court denied and which King appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot on November 13, 2008.
- King filed a federal habeas petition on November 13, 2009, arguing that the statute of limitations had not run or that tolling should apply.
- The district court held the petition untimely under AEDPA § 2244(d)(1) and rejected equitable tolling; the district court granted a certificate of appealability on two issues.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the petition was untimely and that King was not entitled to equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely under AEDPA after Riddle/Parmley. | King argues timely under Riddle and Parmley. | State contends petition untimely under AEDPA. | Untimely under AEDPA. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to King’s petition. | King seeks tolling due to attorney's actions and Riddle overrule. | State asserts no diligent pursuit and no extraordinary circumstance. | Not entitled to equitable tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riddle v. Kemna, 523 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc: state supreme court is not always final; timing for finality governs AEDPA)
- Parmley v. Norris, 586 F.3d 1066 (8th Cir. 2009) (applies Riddle framework to Arkansas prisoners)
- Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1998) (direct review concept for AEDPA finality)
- Beery v. Ault, 312 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2002) (ineffective assistance generally not sufficient for tolling)
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (neither tolling nor excusable neglect extend to garden-variety claims)
- Moore v. United States, 173 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 1999) (Rule 6(a) applies to AEDPA time calculations)