517 F. App'x 731
11th Cir.2013Background
- Ross, a Florida prisoner, pleaded guilty to attempted sexual battery on 9 September 1999 and was sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment.
- His conviction and sentence became final on 12 October 1999 after the time for direct review expired.
- Ross filed a pro se federal habeas petition on 28 February 2011 challenging ineffective-assistance claims related to undisclosed DNA evidence.
- AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations applies; triggering events include finality and discovery of the factual predicate with due diligence.
- The district court held the petition untimely under § 2244(d)(1)(A) because finality occurred prior to discovery and did not consider § 2244(d)(1)(D).
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded to determine timeliness based on when Ross could have learned of his attorney’s misrepresentations through due diligence, potentially starting the clock later than finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely under § 2244(d)(1)(D). | Ross argued discovery date of new evidence delayed tolling. | Ross's counsel’s misrepresentation about DNA evidence did not affect timeliness. | Timeliness must be assessed by due diligence; not automatically barred by finality. |
| Whether the DNA report constitutes newly discovered evidence for tolling. | DNA report could be discovered through due diligence after misrepresentation. | DNA report existed before plea and was not newly discovered. | DNA report's discovery timing depends on due diligence and counsel's disclosure. |
| When the limitations period began for Ross’s ineffective-assistance claim. | Start date after discovery of the misrepresentation by counsel. | Start date was finality of conviction. | District court erred by anchoring to finality; timeliness must consider discovery of the predicate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) (timeliness of habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d))
- Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2002) (due diligence as starting point for timeliness inquiry)
- Beavers v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2009) (fiduciary duty to disclose material facts by attorney to client)
- Golden Pac. Bancorp v. FDIC, 273 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2001) (fiduciary-like disclosure in client representation)