Tuwane English v. United States, 840 F.3d 957

In Nov. 2011 Tuwane English pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack; district court varied downward from career-offender guideline and sentenced him to 180 months. He did not appeal; conviction became final Apr. 12, 2012.
English filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on Sept. 16, 2013 — five months after the one-year limitations period expired.
English sought equitable tolling based on letters he wrote from prison (notably a March 3, 2013 letter to the trial judge complaining that his public defender would not communicate) and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (claim that counsel promised a 120-month sentence but English received 180 months).
The district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied § 2255 relief as time-barred under § 2255(f), and alternatively rejected the merits; it granted a COA on (1) equitable tolling and (2) ineffective assistance claim about sentencing advice.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed equitable-tolling denial de novo (fact findings for clear error) and concluded English failed to show the required diligence and extraordinary circumstance to justify tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the one-year § 2255 limitations period should be equitably tolled	English: his March 3, 2013 letters and lack of communication from counsel show diligence and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing	Government: English was not reasonably diligent; letters did not clearly request § 2255 relief and he waited 17 months after sentencing to raise the claim	Denied — equitable tolling not available because English failed to show reasonable diligence or that letters put court/counsel on clear notice to act
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by promising a 120-month sentence (rendering plea involuntary)	English: trial counsel incorrectly informed him he would get 120 months, so his plea was involuntary	Government: merits not reached because motion was time-barred; district court alternatively rejected claim on merits	Not reached on appeal — court affirmed on statute-of-limitations grounds and did not decide the merits

Anjulo-Lopez v. United States, 541 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2008) (finality of conviction where no appeal taken)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling standard for habeas and diligence requirement)
Muhammad v. United States, 735 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2013) (equitable tolling elements applied to § 2255)
Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2001) (equitable tolling is an exceedingly narrow remedy)
United States v. Hernandez, 436 F.3d 851 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for equitable tolling determinations)
Beery v. Ault, 312 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2002) (requirements for construing pro se filings as habeas petitions)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (lack of diligence precludes equitable tolling)