Williams v. Green, 1:13-cv-03362

Petitioner Deandre L. Williams was convicted in 2007 in Maryland of second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and a handgun offense and sentenced to 50 years.
Direct appeal was affirmed by Maryland's intermediate appellate court on March 17, 2009; the Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari on June 19, 2009, and the conviction became final on September 17, 2009.
Williams filed a post-conviction petition on June 2, 2010, which he withdrew on August 29, 2011; he filed another petition December 21, 2011, which was denied on October 1, 2012, and state appellate review concluded August 30, 2013.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations began September 17, 2009, with statutory tolling during properly filed post-conviction proceedings.
Because of the withdrawal and gaps between state filings, more than 439 days elapsed without tolling between finality and Williams’s federal § 2254 filing (dated November 5, 2013), exceeding the one-year limit.
Williams sought equitable tolling, arguing unawareness of the deadline and ineffective notice from his appellate attorney; the court rejected these contentions and dismissed the petition as time-barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams’s § 2254 petition is barred by AEDPA’s one-year limitation	Williams argues his petition is timely because he lacked knowledge of the AEDPA deadline and his appellate counsel failed to inform him	Respondents argue limitations ran and statutory tolling gaps mean the one-year period expired before filing	Court held petition is time-barred: more than one year elapsed when no tolling applied
Whether statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2) applies to excuse delay	Williams relies on his state post-conviction filings to toll the period	Respondents point to the withdrawal and inter-petition gaps that ended tolling and permitted expiration of the limitations period	Court found tolling applied only during pending proceedings and did not cover the gaps; statutory tolling insufficient to save the filing
Whether equitable tolling is warranted	Williams contends lack of knowledge and counsel’s failure justify equitable tolling	Respondents argue ignorance of law and counsel negligence are not extraordinary circumstances	Court held equitable tolling not warranted: petitioner’s pro se status and counsel negligence are not extraordinary circumstances
Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue	Williams implicitly seeks review	Respondents oppose issuance	Court denied COA, finding jurists of reason would not debate the procedural ruling

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling applies to AEDPA when petitioner shows diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000) (test for equitable tolling and tolling during properly filed state proceedings)
Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2003) (attorney negligence or mistake in interpreting AEDPA limitations does not constitute extraordinary circumstances)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability when a petition is denied on procedural grounds)