United States v. Cornish
1:07-cr-00604
D. MarylandOct 27, 2014Background
- Jonathan Cornish pled guilty to using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (the murder of Carl Lackl) in connection with gang activity and was sentenced; judgment entered August 21, 2009.
- Cornish waived most appellate rights in his plea; he did not file a direct appeal.
- On October 15, 2013 (filed October 21, 2013), Cornish filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion asserting defects in the criminal information, lack of AG certification for juvenile transfer, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Government moved to dismiss as time-barred under the one-year limitations period in § 2255(f); the court ordered limited briefing on timeliness and tolling.
- Cornish argued statutory tolling under § 2255(f)(2) (government-created impediment) and (f)(4) (discovery of facts), and alternatively equitable tolling based on counsel and courthouse delays and the sealing/unsealing of the case.
- The district court found Cornish’s conviction became final September 4, 2009, rejected statutory tolling and equitable tolling arguments, and dismissed the § 2255 motion as untimely; it denied a Certificate of Appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cornish) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness — start date of § 2255 limitations | Limitations period began when criminal information was unsealed (Oct 29/30, 2013) | Conviction became final Sept 4, 2009; one-year clock ran from then | Conviction final Sept 4, 2009; motion untimely |
| Statutory tolling under § 2255(f)(2) (government-created impediment) | Sealing of the criminal information prevented timely filing | Sealing did not create an unconstitutional impediment; not covered by (f)(2) | (f)(2) inapplicable; sealing not an impediment |
| Statutory tolling under § 2255(f)(4) (discovery of facts) | Unsealing enabled discovery of facts supporting claims | Government unsealed parts earlier; Cornish lacked diligence; no new facts discovered by exercise of due diligence | (f)(4) inapplicable; no due diligence shown |
| Equitable tolling | Counsel failed to notify of deadline; court staff/misdirected database info delayed filings; requests court to equitably toll | No extraordinary circumstance shown; Cornish failed to pursue rights diligently | Equitable tolling denied; not reasonable diligence or extraordinary circumstance |
Key Cases Cited
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (rules when conviction is "final" for AEDPA/timeliness purposes)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (equitable tolling standard applied to habeas limitations)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (standard for Certificate of Appealability — substantial showing required)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (issues adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further for COA)
- United States v. Byers, 649 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. decision addressing underlying murder/gang facts relevant to conviction)