Harris v. Huchinson

• Decision Date: 28 January 2000
• Docket Number: CA-98-2410-JFM,No. 99-6175,99-6175
• Citation: 209 F.3d 325
• Parties: (4th Cir. 2000) PERCY STANLEY HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. (). . Argued:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 325

209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000)

PERCY STANLEY HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-6175 (CA-98-2410-JFM).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

Argued: January 28, 2000.

Decided: April 4, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

COUNSEL ARGUED: Fred Warren Bennett, BENNETT & NATHANS, L.L.P., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Ann Norman Bosse, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael E. Lawlor, BENNETT & NATHANS, L.L.P., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Criminal Appeals Division, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and Frederic N. SMALKIN, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Senior Judge Hamilton and Judge Smalkin joined.

OPINION

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

On July 22, 1998, Percy Harris filed this federal habeas petition to challenge his Maryland state court conviction. He filed his petition more than one year after enactment of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which established a one-year limitation period for filing federal habeas petitions, but less than one year after he completed state post-conviction review proceedings. The district court dismissed Harris' petition as untimely.

On appeal, Harris contends (1) that the district court misapplied the federal statute of limitations or, alternatively, (2) that the running of the time should have been "equitably tolled" because Harris relied on his attorney's reasonable interpretation of the statute. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court's dismissal order.

I

On November 9, 1990, Percy Harris was convicted in Maryland state court of first-degree murder and related offenses. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Harris pursued a direct appeal of his conviction to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed his conviction, and he petitioned the Maryland Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on April 24, 1992. See Harris v. State, 605 A.2d 101 (Md. 1992).

Four years later, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") was enacted, establishing a one-year limitation period within which to file any federal habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The statute excludes from the one-year period the time a petitioner spends in pursuit of state post-conviction relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

On March 12, 1997, ten-and-one-half months after the enactment of the AEDPA, Harris filed a petition for state post-conviction relief. The petition was denied, and on January 7, 1998, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Harris' application for leave to appeal the denial, thus concluding his state post-conviction proceedings.

When counsel for Harris learned of the state court's final decision on Harris' petition for post-conviction relief, counsel wrote Harris a letter, dated January 12, 1998, advising him:

The next (and last) step is to go into federal court by way of a federal habeas Petition. You have one year from January 7, 1998 [the date the state post-conviction proceedings concluded], or up to and including January 6, 1999, to go into federal court.

Harris filed his federal habeas petition in this case on July 22, 1998. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred, applying the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. This appeal followed.

II

Although Harris acknowledges that the time for filing his federal habeas petition is governed by the one-year statute of limitations imposed by the AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), he argues that the oneyear period does not commence until the conclusion of state postconviction proceedings. Because his state post-conviction proceedings were not completed until January 7, 1998, Harris maintains that the filing of his federal habeas petition on July 22, 1998, less than eight months later, was timely. To support his interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), Harris relies on two district court cases: Valentine v. Senkowski, 966 F. Supp. 239, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that the one-year period of limitations imposed by § 2244(d) "does not begin to run until after direct review has been completed and state post-conviction review has been exhausted"), and Martin v. Jones, 969 F. Supp. 1058, 1061 (M.D. Tenn. 1997) (restating the holding of Valentine).

The State of Maryland argues that the clear language of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides that the one-year period begins with the conclusion of direct review of Harris' judgment of conviction. Because his direct review was completed in 1992, before enactment of § 2244(d), the State argues that the one-year period began on April 24, 1996, the date on which the AEDPA was signed into law.

The AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), reads in pertinent part:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of --

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. * * *

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.

Thus, the statute provides in no uncertain terms that the one-year period within which a federal habeas petition must be filed begins at "the conclusion of direct review" of the judgment of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (emphasis added). It adds, however, that the running of this period is suspended for the time that a state postconviction proceeding "is pending." 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(d)(2). We have construed a state post-conviction proceeding to include all state-court proceedings "from initial filing [in the trial court] to final disposition by the highest state court." Taylor v. Lee , 186 F.3d 557, 561 (4th Cir. 1999). Upon final disposition of the state post-conviction proceeding, the running of the § 2244(d) one-year period resumes.

In short, the AEDPA provides that upon conclusion of direct review of a judgment of conviction, the one-year period within which to file a federal habeas petition commences, but the running of the period is suspended for the period when state post-conviction proceedings are pending in any state court. Every circuit court that has construed 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) has interpreted it in this way. See Fields v. Johnson, 159 F.3d 914 916 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Hoggro v. Boone, 150 F.3d 1223, 1226 (10th Cir. 1998); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286-87 (9th Cir. 1997).

In this case, the time for seeking direct review of Harris' state-court conviction was concluded on July 23, 1992, when the period for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired.¹ See, e.g., Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 1999). Because this conviction became final before the enactment of the AEDPA in 1996, the one-year limitation period imposed by the Act began to run on April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Act. See Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 1998). Thus, for Harris, the one-year limitation period imposed by § 2244(d) commenced on April 24, 1996. Ten-and-one-half months later, on March 12, 1997, Harris filed his petition for state post-conviction review, which suspended the running of the one-year limitation period. This petition remained "pending" in state courts until January 7, 1998, when the Maryland Court of Appeals denied Harris' application for leave to appeal the denial of his petition. At this point, the clock began running again on the one-year limitation period, expiring one-and-onehalf months later, in February 1998. Harris did not file his federal habeas petition until July 22, 1998, six months after his one-year period had expired. Therefore, the petition was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

III

Harris argues that even if we disagree with his interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), the time restriction imposed by that statute is not a jurisdictional bar, but rather a statute of limitations, and that the principles of equitable tolling therefore may be applied. He argues further that equitable tolling should be applied in this case because he relied on the "negligent and erroneous advice" of his counsel who "misadvis[ed]" him of the deadline for filing this habeas petition and because precedent at the time counsel gave him the advice was not "clear." Counsel for Harris concedes that he gave Harris the erroneous advice, citing a claimed lack of clarity in existing precedent at the time. Before addressing whether Harris has presented circumstances sufficient to justify equitable tolling, we must first address whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling.

A

As a general matter, principles of equitable tolling may, in the proper circumstances, apply to excuse a plaintiff's failure to comply with the strict requirements of a statute of limitations. See English v. Pabst Brewing Co., 828 F.2d 1047, 1049 (4th Cir. 1987); Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 716 F.2d 1010, 1011-12 (4th Cir. 1983). But these principles may not apply to overcome a jurisdictional bar, where strict...