09- 3623
- pr

J enki ns v . G

r e e ne 1 U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS 2 F ORTH E S EC ON D C I R C UI T 3 4 A ugus tT er m , 200 9 5 6 ( A r gued: A pr i l 15, 2010 D eci ded: D ece m ber23, 2010) 7 8 D ocketN o. 09- 3623- pr 9 10 11 12 T AI W U J ENK INS , P e tit io n e r-Ap p e lla n t, 13 1 4 — v . — 15 1 6 G ARY G R EEN E , R es pondent

-Appel l ee. 17 18 1 9 B e f o re: B. D. P ARKER , L I VING ST ON , and L YNCH , C i r cui tJudges
. 20 2 1

__________________ 2 2 A ppel l antw as s ent ence d aft ert r i al t o t w o cons ecut i ve tw enty - fi ve y earpr i s on 2 3 ter m s. H e a rg u e s th a t h e re c e iv e d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l, i n th a t h is tria l 2 4 couns el fai l ed t o i nfor m hi m of hi s s ent enci ng expos ur e and he w oul d have a cce pt ed a 2 5 plea offer had h e kn ow n o f t hat expo sure. T he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed a w ri tof h abeas 2 6 corpus, ho l ding t hat appell ant’ s fai l ure t o seek the w ri tw i t hin t he o ne-y ear l i m i t at i on s 2 7 p e ri o d w a s n o t e x c u s e d b ye q u ita b le to llin g (R o b e rt W . S w e e t, Judge ). 2 8 A F F I R MED . 2 9 J u d g e P a rk e r d is s e n ts in a s e p a ra te o p in io n .2 1 2 3 M AL VIN A N ATH AN SO N , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f orP et i t i oner -Appel l ant . 4 5 A SH L Y N D ANNEL L Y (B a rb a ra D
. U n d e rw o o d , S o lic ito r G e n e ra l; R o s e a n n B
. 6 M a c K e c h n i e , D e p u ty S o lic ito r G e n e ra l f o r C ri m in a l M a tte rs , on the 7 b r i ef ), f orAn d r e w M
. Cu o mo , At t o r n e yGe n e r a l o f t h e S t a t e o f

Ne w 8 Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f orR es pondent

-Appel l ee . 9 1 0 1 1 G ERARD E. L YNCH , C i r cui tJudge : 1 2 Pet i t i oner - appel l antT ai w u J enki ns w as s ent ence d i n 2000 t o t w o cons ecut i ve 1 3 t w enty - fi ve y earpr i s on t er m s aft era j ur yconvi ct ed hi m of t w o count s of as s aul ti n t he 1 4 fi r s tdegr ee f

ors l as hi ng t w o vi ct i m s ’ fac es w i th a r azorbl ade. I n 2005, J enki ns fi l ed a 1 5 pr o s e mot i on i n s t at e court , s eeki ng t o vaca t e hi s j udgm entof convi ct i on on t he gr ound 1 6 th a t h is tr ia l a tto rn e yh a d n o t a c c u ra te ly in f o rm e d h im o f

h is s e n te n c e e x p o s u re , a n d th a t, 1 7 h a d th e a tto rn e yd o n e so , Je n k in s w o u ld h a v e a c c e p ted a p lea o f f e r f ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t 1 8 rathe r t h an g o to tr ial
. A fter the stat e c o u rt s d en ied h is m o ti o n , Jen k ins f il ed a p eti ti o n fo r 1 9 w r i tof habe as corpus i n t he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k, w hi ch w as deni ed on the 2 0 groun d thathis peti t i on w as unti m el yun der 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 24 4(d)( 1). Jenkins now argues 2 1 t h a ts t a t e l a w r e q u i r e d h i m t o s u p p o r th i s p o s t - t r i a l m o t i o n w i t h a n a f f i d a v i tf r o m t h e v e r y 2 2 at t or neyw hos e per for m ance he w as i m pugni ng, and thatt he att or ney ’ s fai l ur e t o r epl yi n 2 3 a t i m e l y m a n n e rt o h i s l e t t e r s r e q u e s t i n g s u c h a n a f f i d a v i tc o n s t i tu t e d a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y 2 4 c irc u m sta n c e w a rra n tin g e q u itab le to lli n g o f th e lim itatio n s p e rio d . W e c o n c lu d e th a t3 1 Jenkins’ s ar gu m ent fai l s, becau se N ew Y ork l aw i n fac tperm i t t ed h i m t o sup po rthis 2 m oti on w i t h either an aff i dav i tor an ex planat i on of w hysuch an affidavi tw as 3 unavai l abl e. H e t her efor e coul d have f i l ed on t i m e i n s pi t e of the att or ney ’ s der el i ct i on 4 a n d is n o t e n title d to e q u ita b le to llin g . 5 BA CKGROUND 6 O n A ugus t10, 2000, T ai w u J enki ns w as s ent ence d t o t w o cons ecut i ve pr i s on 7 t er m s of t w enty - fi ve y ear s , aft erbei ng found gui l t ybya j ur yof t w o count s of as s aul ti n 8 t he fir stdeg ree. T he co nv i ct i on arose fr om an inci den ti n O ct ob er 1998 i n w hich Jenkins 9 as ked tw o peopl e forchange i ns i de a gr ocerys t or e i n upperM anhatt an. A ft ert he tw o 1 0 r efus ed, J enki ns ar gued w i t h t hem, fol l ow ed them out s i de the s t or e, and s l as hed both 1 1 vi ct i m s ’ fac es w i t h a r azorbl ade. E ach ne eded a ppr oxi m at el y150 s t i t ches t o cl os e the 1 2 re s u ltin g w o u n d s . 1 3 J enki ns uns ucce s s ful l yappea l ed hi s convi ct i on t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on. See 1 4 Peopl e v. J enki ns , 756 N
. Y
. S. 2d 151 ( 1s tD ep’ t ) , l eave t o appea l deni ed, 100 N
. Y
. 2d 583 1 5 ( 2003)
. J enki ns s ubs equent l yfi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n t he 1 6 Sout hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k, r ai s i ng t he s ame ar gum ent s agai ns thi s convi ct i on t hathe 1 7 m ade i n hi s di r ectappea l
. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed J enki ns ’ s r eques tforappoi nt m entof 1 8 cou nsel
. Jenkins’ s coun sel t hen asked the dis t ri ctcou rtt o st ayt he p et i t i on w hil e Jenkins 1 9 e x h a u ste d sta te c o u rt re m e d ies “ re latin g to a n in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se lSm i t h r epr es ent ed Jenki ns t hr ough t r i al , but di d not r epr es enthi m athi s s ent enci ng 1 o r o n a p p e a l. R e sp o n d e n t ad v ise d th e d istric t c o u rt th a t n o re c o rd s o f a se c o n d p lea o f f e r e x ist in 2 t he d i stri ctat t orney ’s fi l es. 4 1 ar gum ent . ” The di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on on M ay13, 2005, w i t h l eave t o 2 re o p e n . 3 T w o m o n th s la te r, i n J u ly 2 0 0 5 , J e n k in s m o v e d p ro s e in s ta te c o u rt u n d e r N .Y
. 4 C .P .L . § 4 4 0 .1 0 to v a c a te th e ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n , c la im in g th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l, 5 O l i verA
. Sm i t h, pr ovi ded i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance byfai l i ng t o t el l hi m t hati f he w er e 6 convi ct ed af

t ert r i al , he fa ced a m axi m um s ent ence of t w enty - fi ve y ear s on eac h countof 7 a ss a u lt. Je n k in s a ss e rte d th a t S m ith c o n v e y e d to h im tw o p lea o f f e rs – o n e o f

e ig h t 1 8 y ea rs, then o n e o f se v en y ea rs – and advi s ed hi m t hat“the j udge w oul d pr obabl ygi ve 2 9 [hi m ] 10 t o 12 y ear s ” i f he w er e convi ct ed att r i al
. J enki ns m ai nt ai ned that , had Sm i t h 1 0 advi s ed hi m as t o hi s t rue s ent enci ng expos ur e, he w oul d have a cce pt ed one of t he off er ed 1 1 p le a b a rg a in s . 1 2 J enki ns i ncl uded w i t h hi s m ot i on t w o l et t er s : one fr om J enki ns t o Sm i t h dat ed 1 3 A p ri l 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , a n d a re p ly f ro m S m ith d a te d A p ri l 2 1 , 2 0 0 5
. T h e A p ri l 17 let ter 1 4 r epea t edl yques t i ons Sm i t h w hyhe fa i l ed t o t el l J enki ns t hathi s t ot al s ent enci ng expos ur e 1 5 w as fi ft yy ear s , and as ks Sm i t h foranyas s i s t ance he coul d offe r , butdoes notas k foran 1 6 aff

i davi torot herfor m al s t at ement fr om Sm i t h ver i fy i ng t hathe had nott ol d J enki ns of1 Sm i t h’ s l et t eral s o count er ed J enki ns ’ s s ugges t i on t hathe fa i l ed t o puton t he 3 2 s t r onges tpos s i bl e c ase , expl ai ni ng t hati n hi s opi ni on t he ca s e w as l os tbeca us e the mai n 3 w itn e s s o n J e n k in s ’s b e h a lf w a s c a u g h t in a lie
.

5 1 hi s ful l s ent ence expos ur e. Sm i t h’ s r es pons e expl ai ns t hathe w as s urpr i s ed att he l ength 2 o f J e n k i n s ’ s s e n t e n c e . S m i t h w i s h e d J e n k i n s l u c k i n h i s p e t i t i o n a n d e n d e d t h e l e t t e rb y 3 s t at i ng “i f t her e i s anyt hi ng t hatI can do t o as s i s ty ou i n t hatr egar d, t hen pl eas e l etm e 4 k n o w .” 3 5 T h e sta te c o u rt d e n ied Je n k in s’s m o tio n o n O c to b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 . Je n k in s s o u g h t 6 l eave t o appea l fr om t he deni al of hi s m ot i on, as s er t i ng t hati n M ay2005 he had r eques t ed 7 an af

fi davi tfr om Sm i t h at t es t i ng t hathe had noti nfor m ed J enki ns of hi s s ent ence 8 expos ur e, butt hatSm i t h had notr es ponded t o t he r eques t . T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on deni ed 9 le a v e to a p p e a l o n J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 6
. 1 0 A l m os tt hr ee w eeks l at er , J enki ns fi l ed a s econd pr o s e habe as corpus pet i t i on i n 1 1 t he S ou t hern D i stri ctof N ew Y ork. H e again rai sed his ori ginal chall eng es t o h i s 1 2 convi ct i on, butadded a n i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m bas ed on Sm i t h’ s fai l ur e 1 3 t o i nfor m hi m of hi s s ent ence expos ur e. I n Sept ember , J enki ns w r ot e t o t he courtt hathe 1 4 h a d o b tain e d n e w e v id e n c e w ith re sp e c t to h is p rio r sta te- c o u rt m o tio n , an d re q u e ste d th a t 1 5 t he fe deral hab eas pet i t i on be h el d in abey ance u nti l t he st at e cou rthad rul ed o n h i s 1 6 r enew ed mot i on. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed the s t ay , condi t i oned on J enki ns ’ s r etur n t o 1 7 th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith in th ir ty d a y s o f e x h a u s tin g h is s ta te re m e d ie s .6 1 M eanw hi l e, J enki ns m oved i n s t at e courtt o r enew hi s § 440 m ot i on bas ed on 2 p u rp o r t e d n e w l y- d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e . J e n k i n s a t t a c h e d t w o l e t t e r s t o S m i t h , d a t e d M a y 3 10, 2005 and J une 12, 2006, as ki ng foran af fi davi t . J enki ns al s o at t ache d an af fi r m at i on 4 from S m i t h, dated Jul y21 , 20 06 , at t est i ng t hat he had no ti nfo rm ed Jenk i ns t hat hi s 5 expos ur e w as fi ft yy ear s . T he s t at e courtdeni ed J enki ns ’ s m ot i on t o r enew , and the 6 A p p e lla te D iv is io n a g a in d e n ie d le a v e to a p p e a l. 7 T w e n tyd a y s a f ter th e A p p e llate D iv isio n ru lin g , Je n k in s in f o rm e d th e d istric t 8 cou rtt hat he had exh aust ed h i s i neff ect i ve assi st ance c l ai m . In January20 08 , Jenkins 9 r et ai ned new couns el , w ho fi l ed s uppl ement al paper s dr oppi ng al l butt he i neff ect i ve 1 0 a ss ista n c e c laim s a n d in c lu d in g a su p p lem e n tal a f f id a v it b yJe n k in s s tatin g th a t h e h a d n o t 1 1 been i nfor m ed thathi s t ot al s ent ence expos ur e w as fi ft yy ear s . C ouns el al s o at t ache d an 1 2 a f

f ir m a tio n b yD o m in ic J . P ro f a c i, w h o b ri e f

ly re p re s e n te d J e n k in s b e f o re h is in d ic tm e n t, 1 3 s t at i ng t hati n hi s br i ef r epr es ent at i on of J enki ns , he di d notr eca l l di s cus s i ng s ent ence 1 4 e x p o s u re w ith h im
. 1 5 A ft ert he governm ents ubm i t t ed a mem or andum of l aw ar gui ng t hatt he i neff ect i ve 1 6 as s i s t ance cl ai m w as unt i m el y , J enki ns ar gued i n r epl yt hathe w as ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e 1 7 t ol l i ng. J enki ns s ubm i t t ed fur t hers uppl ement al m at er i al s w i t h hi s r epl y , i ncl udi ng an 1 8 aff

i r m at i on byJ enki ns ’ s w i fe s t at i ng t hatSm i t h had t ol d J enki ns hi s s ent ence expos ur e 1 9 w as ar ound t en y ear s and t w o l et t er s fr om J enki ns t o Sm i t h dat ed J ul y25, 2003 and7 1 F e b ru a ry 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , b o th re q u e s tin g a n a f f id a v it. 2 T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d J e n k in s ’s p e titio n a s u n tim e ly. S e e J e n k in s v . G re e n e , 3 6 4 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 1 5 (S .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 9 ). T h e c o u rt f o u n d th a t w h ile J e n k in s h a d u n til 4 O ct ober15, 2004 t o fi l e a pe t i t i on r ai s i ng hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s , he 5 did not fi l e t hat cl ai m un t i l June 2 9, 20 06
. Id. at62 0. T he co urtal so rej ect ed Jenk i ns’s 6 ar gum entt hathi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m r el at ed bac k t o hi s i ni t i al pet i t i on 7 pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 15( c) ( 1) ( B ) , fi ndi ng t hatt he i neff ect i ve 8 a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m d i d n o ta r i s e f r o m t h e s a me c o mmo n c o r e o f o p e r a t i v e f

a c t s a s h i s c l a i m 9 in h is in iti a l p e tit io n th a t h is s e n ten c e w a s e x c e ss iv e . Id . at 6 2 1 . F in a lly , the d istric t co u rt 1 0 re

jec ted Je n k in s’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e w a s e n tit led to e q u itab le to lli n g , sta tin g th a t th e c o u rt 1 1 w a s “ n o t p e rsu a d e d th a t th e d if f icu ltyJe n k in s h a d in o b tain in g th e a f f id a v it fro m [ h is tria l 1 2 c o u n s e l] c o n s titu te s a n e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e .” Id . a t 6 2 2
. 13 DI S CUS S I ON 14 I . St andard of R evi ew 1 5 T h e S u p rem e C o u rtrec en tl yco n firm ed that eq u it ab le t o ll ing ap p li es to the 1 -y ea r 1 6 lim ita tio n s p e ri o d c o n ta in e d in 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )( 1 ). H o lla n d v . F lo ri d a , 1 3 0 S . C t. 1 7 2 5 4 9 , 2 5 6 0 (20 1 0 ). H o w ev er, t o ll ing is ap p rop ri ate “ o n lyif [the p eti ti o n er] sh o w s ‘(1) 1 8 t h a th e h a s b e e n p u r s u i n g h i s r i g h t s d i l i g e n t l y, a n d ( 2 ) t h a ts o m e e x t r a o r d i n a r y 1 9 ci r cumst ance s s t ood i n hi s w ay ’ and pr eve nt ed t i m el y f i l i ng . ” Id. at25 62 (em ph asi s 2 0 a d d e d ), q u o tin g P a c e v . D iG u g lielm o , 5 4 4 U .S . 4 0 8 , 4 1 8 (2 0 0 5 ). W h e re a d istric t co u rt1 J e n k in s th u s h a d u n til O c to b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 to f ile a f e d e ra l h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n . 4 2 J enki ns w as r equi r ed t o exhaus t hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m i n s t at e courtbefor e fi l i ng 3 the fe der al pet i t i on, but t he one- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od w oul d have been s t atut or i l ytoll ed 4 d u ri n g th e p e n d e n c yo f th e s ta te p ro c e e d in g s . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )( 2 ). H e re , h o w e v e r, 5 J e n k i n s d i d n o te v e n p r e s e n th i s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e m o t i o n t o t h e s t a t e c o u r tu n t i l J u l y 6 2005. I n eff

ect , t her efor e, t he i s su e bef or e us i s w hetheran extr aor di naryci r cumst ance 7 p re v e n te d J e n k in s f ro m f ilin g h is s ta te m o tio n u n til th a t tim e .

8 1 d e n ie s e q u ita b le to llin g a s a m a tte r o f la w , w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n d e n o v o . S e e B e lo t v . 2 B ur ge, 490 F. 3d 201, 206 ( 2d C i r . 2007)
. I f t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed equi t abl e t ol l i ng on 3 t he bas i s of a f

actual fi ndi ng, how ever , w e r evi ew t he fa ctual fi ndi ng forcl earerr or . See 4 i d. I f t he di s t r i ctcour tdecl i ned t o t ol l i n t he exe r ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on, w e appl yan abus e 5 o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . S e e S a u n d e rs v . S e n k o w s k i, 5 8 7 F .3 d 5 4 3 , 5 4 9 -5 0 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 6 W e n e e d n o t d e c id e w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t Je n k in s d id n o t 7 d e m o n stra te e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s p re v e n ted h im f ro m m a k in g h is c laim is a leg a l 8 ordi s cr et i onaryone. B eca us e w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on, w e w oul d 9 a f f ir m re g a rd le s s o f

th e s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w a p p lie d
. 10 II. A n alysi s 1 1 A fe d era l hab ea s co rpu s p eti ti o n m u st be fil ed w ith in o n e y ea r of the latest of

fo u r 1 2 dat es , i n J enki ns ’ s cas e O ct ober15, 2003, w hen hi s t i m e t o s eek a w r i tof ce r t i or ar i t o t he 1 3 S u p r e me Co u r te x p i r e d
. S e e 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( s p e c i f y i n g t h a to n e d a t e f

r o m 4 1 4 w h i c h t h e l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d m a y ru n i s “ t h e d a t e o n w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n tb e c a m e f i n a l b y 1 5 th e c o n c lu s io n o f d ir e c t r e v ie w o r t h e e x p ir a tio n o f th e tim e f

o r s e e k in g s u c h re v ie w ” ).9 1 J e n k i n s d o e s n o tn o w d i s p u t e t h a th e r a i s e d t h e i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m 2 out s i de thi s t i m e per i od, and no l ongercont ends t hatt hi s new ar gum entr el at es back t o t he 3 fi l i ng of hi s or i gi nal pet i t i on r ai s i ng ot heri s s ues . H e i ns t ead a r gues thathe i s ent i t l ed t o 4 e q u ita b le to llin g o f th e s ta tu to ry p e ri o d . T h is a rg u m e n t is u n a v a ilin g . 5 T ol l i ng of t he l i m i t at i ons per i od i s appl i ed onl yi n “r ar e and e xcept i onal ” 6 ci r cumst ance s . Sm i th v. M cG i nni s , 208 F. 3d 13, 17 ( 2d C i r . 2000)
. A l i t i gants eeki ng 7 equi t abl e t ol l i ng m us ts how bot h t hathe “di l i gent l y ” pur s ued hi s r i ght s and that“s om e 8 extr aor di nar yci r cumst ance . . . pr event ed t i m el yfi l i ng. ” H ol l and, 130 S. C t . at2562 9 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o B ol ar i nw a v. W i l l i ams, 593 F. 3d 226, 231 ( 2d 1 0 C i r . 2010)
. A pet i t i oners eeki ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng m us t“demonstr at e a c aus al r el at i ons hi p 1 1 betw een the extr aordi naryci rcum st ances o n w hich t he clai m for equ i t able t oll i ng res t s 1 2 and the l at enes s of hi s fi l i ng, a demonstr at i on t hatcannotbe made i f t he pet i t i oner , act i ng 1 3 w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e , c o u l d h a v e f i l e d o n t i m e n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y 1 4 c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” V a lv e rd e v . S tin s o n , 2 2 4 F .3 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 1 5 W e need no tadd res s w hetherJenkins w as di l i gen ti n p ursui ng his ri gh t s, as hi s 1 6 ar gum entforequi t abl e t ol l i ng fai l s on t he s econd e l ement : J enki ns has nots how n t hatan 1 7 extr aor di nar yci r cumst ance s t ood i n t he w ayof hi s pur s ui ng hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of 1 8 couns el cl ai m . J enki ns ar gues t hathe fa ced a n extr aor di naryci r cumst ance beca us e, i n 1 9 order t o p res ent hi s cl ai m of ineffecti ve assi st ance o f cou nsel t o the N ew Y ork cou rt s ( as 2 0 h e w a s re q u ir e d to d o in o rd e r t o e x h a u s t h is s ta te re m e d ie s b e f o re s e e k in g f

e d e ra l r e lie f

),10 1 N ew Y ork l aw requi red hi m t o p rovi de an affidavi tfrom t he att orneyw ho se effect i ven ess 2 i s b e i n g d i s p u t e d , a n d h e f a c e d “ p a r t i c u l a rd i f

f i c u l t i e s ” o b t a i n i n g s u c h a n a f f i d a v i tf r o m 3 S m ith
. 4 It is sim p lyn o t tru e , h o w e v e r, th a t N e w Y o rk law re q u ire d d e f e n d a n ts to p re se n t 5 an af

fi dav i tfrom t he all eged l yi neff ect i ve co un sel
. T he v erycases on w hich Jenkins 6 him sel f rel i es ar e cl ear that the N ew Y ork cou rt s do n ot i nflexi blyrequi re that defend ants 7 cl ai m i ng i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance m us tpr es enta s uppor t i ng aff i davi tfr om t he cha l l enged 8 at t or ney . N o doubtr ecogni zi ng t hatobt ai ni ng s uch an a ffi davi tm aypr ove di ffi cul t , t he 9 N e w Y o rk c o u rts h a v e e x p re ss lysta ted th a t ei thera n a f f id a v it fro m c o u n se l oran 1 0 expl anat i on of w hys uch an a ffi davi ti s notavai l abl e i s acc ept abl e. T hati s t he s peci fi c 1 1 ho l ding of

P eop l e v. M oral es, 58 N
. Y
. 2d 10 08 (1983 ), t he N ew Y ork C ou rtof A pp eal s 1 2 d e c isio n th a t Je n k in s m a in tain s c re a ted th e a f f id a v it req u ire m e n t: 1 3 B e c a u s e d e f e n d a n tf a i l e d t o s u b m i ta n a f

f i d a v i tf r o m t h e a t t o r n e y 1 4 w ho r epr es ent ed hi m atpl ea a nd s ent ence o r o ffera n ex

p la n a tio n o

f 1 5 his f ail ure t o d o so , i tcannotbe s ai d t hatas t o defe ndant ’ s fai l ur e t o 1 6 appea l t he coram no bis J udge err ed i n deny i ng t he appl i cat i on 1 7 w ith o u t a h e a ri n g . 18 1 9 Id . a t 1 0 0 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 2 0 I ndeed, i n 2001, t he Fi r s tD epart m enthel d t hats um m arydeni al of a § 440 mot i on 2 1 w h ere the d ef

en d an t pro v ided an ex p lana ti o n fo r his fa il u re to p rov ide a n af fid av itrathe r 2 2 th a n a n a f

f id a v it w a s a n a b u se o f

d isc re tio n . T h e c o u rt sta ted : 2 3 I ti s t rue t hator di nar i l ya compl et e r ecor d adduce d t hr ough a11 1 mot i o n t o v a c a t e t h e j u d g me n to f c o n v i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o CPL 2 4 4 0 .1 0 , w h ich in c lu d e s a n a f f id a v it fro m trial c o u n se l 3 expl ai ni ng hi s orhert r i al t act i cs , i s nece s s aryi n or dert o 4 p ro p e rl ye v a lu a te a c la im o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. 5 T he fa i l ur e t o pr es ents uch an a ffi davi tfr om t he att or neyoran 6 e x p l a n a t i o n f o rt h e f a i l u r e t o d o s o h a s b e e n h e l d t o j u s t i f y 7 deni al of a de fenda nt ’ s m ot i on w i t houta hea r i ng. I n t he 8 i ns t antcas e, how ever , defe ndantpr ovi ded a vi abl e 9 e x p la n a tio n f o r t h e f a ilu re to in c lu d e s u c h a f f id a v it – i.e ., 1 0 couns el ’ s di s bar m entpr i ort o defe ndant ’ s br i ngi ng t he 1 1 m ot i on, but t r es s ed byt he compl ai ntfi l ed w i t h t he G r i evanc e 1 2 C om m i t t ee r egar di ng R oj as ’ conduct
. I tw as , t her efor e, an 1 3 a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n f

o rt h e c o u r tt o s u m m a r i l y d e n y 1 4 defe nd ant’ s Secti on 44 0. 10 m oti on on t he b asi s of t his 1 5 p ro c e d u ra l d e f ic ie n c y . 16 1 7 P e o p l e v . G i l , 7 2 9 N
. Y
. S
. 2 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 5 ( 1 s tD e p ’ t2 0 0 1 )
. N e w Y o r k c o u r t s h a v e r e p e a t e d l y 1 8 reci t ed the rule that ei t her an att orney ’s affidavi tor an ex planat i on for i t s absence is 1 9 req u ir ed
. S ee , e.g., P eo p le v. Jo h n so n , 7 3 9 N
. Y
. S
. 2 d 3 8 1 , 3 8 3 (1st D ep ’t2 0 0 2 ) 2 0 ( aff

i r m i ng t r i al cour t ’ s deni al of m ot i on t o vaca t e convi ct i on due t o i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance 2 1 beca us e def

endant“fa i l ed t o i ncl ude an a ffi davi tof hi s t r i al couns el
. . . oran expl anat i on 2 2 a s t o whys u c h a f f i d a v i twas n o ti n c l u d e d ” ) ; Pe o p l e v . Hun t , No. 4 8 5 7 / 8 4 , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 3 1 5 5 8 8 6 8 , at * 7 (S u p . C t. B ro n x C o . A p r. 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 ) (n o tin g d e f e n d a n t’s f

a ilu re to su b m it 2 4 affidavi tand ci t i ng M oral es’ s “holdi ng t hat D efen dan t ’s fai l ure t o sup plyat t orney ’s 2 5 aff

i r m at i on orexpl ai n s uch fa i l ur e w arr ant ed s um m arydeni al of m ot i on”) ; s ee a l s o 2 6 P e o p le v . R a d c liff e , 7 4 9 N .Y .S .2 d 2 5 7 , 2 5 8 (2 d D e p ’t 2 0 0 2 ) (“ [ T ]h is c o u rt h a s n o t 2 7 r equi r ed af

fi davi t s of couns el w her e, as her e, t he def endanti s r ai s i ng an i neff ect i ve1 T he cases ci t ed b yth e d iss e n t d o n ot s up po rtt he co ntent i on t hat an at t orney ’s 5 2 aff

i davi ti s i nfl exi bl yr equi r ed. I n s om e of t he ca s es ci t ed, t he N ew Y or k cour t s addr es s ed 3 t h e m e r i t s o f t h e u n d e r l yi n g i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m d e s p i t e t h e l a c k o f a n a t t o r n e y 4 a f f id a v it. F o r e x a m p le, in P e o p le v . R o sa rio , the A p p e llate D iv isio n h e ld th a t “[ t]h e trial 5 r ecor d es t abl i s he[d] t hat[R os ar i o] r ece i ved ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance and t hat t her e ar e r eas onabl e 6 s t r at egi c expl anat i ons fort r i al couns el ’ s deci s i on nott o ca ll cer t ai n w i t nes s es . ” 765 7 N. Y. S
. 2 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 2 ( 1 s tDe p ’ t2 0 0 3 ) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. On l ya f t e rr e j e c t i n g t h e c l a i m 8 o n th e m e r it s d id th e c o u rt n o te th a t R o sa rio ’s “ su b m iss io n s o n h is m o tio n , w h ich d id n o t 9 in c lu d e a f

f id a v its f ro m trial c o u n se l orf r om any of

the uncal l ed w i tnes s es , d id n o t 1 0 su b sta n tiate h is c laim s a n d d id n o t w a rra n t a h e a rin g .” Id . (em p h a sis a d d e d ). T h u s th e c o u rt 1 1 d id n o t re q u ire a n a tto rn e ya f f id a v it as a p re re q u isite to re a c h in g th e m e rits, an d , to th e e x ten t 1 2 the a b sen ce o f a n att o rne yaf fid av itw as re leva n t atall , the c o u rte x p re s slytr ea ted o ther 1 3 evi dence – s uch as t he affi davi t s ubm i t t ed i n t hi s cas e byJ enki ns ’ s w i fe – a s an al t ernat i ve 1 4 to an att o rne yaf fid av it
. S ee also P eo p le v
. S m il ey , 8 8 6 N
. Y
. S
. 2 d 8 9 3 , 8 9 3 (2d D ep ’t2 0 0 9 ) 1 5 ( “ [ S m i l e y’ s ] s e l f
- s e r v i n g a l l e g a t i o n s [ w e r e ] n o ts u p p o r t e d b y any otheraf f i davi torevi dence , 1 6 and underal l t he ci r cumst ance s at t endi ng t he cas e, t her e i s no r eas onabl e poss i bi l i t y t hats uch 1 7 al l egat i ons ar e t rue. ” ( emphasi s added) )
. T he othercas es ci t ed byt he di s s entm er el ym ent i on 1 8 t he l ack of an at t or ney aff i davi t , but do not hol d t hats uch an a ffi davi ti s r equi r ed. See Peopl e 1 9 v. D e J es us , 835 N
. Y
. S. 2d 792, 792 ( 4t h D ep’ t2007) ( defe ndant ’ s “s ubm i s s i ons , w hi ch do 2 0 n o t in c lu d e a n a f f id a v it f ro m tr ia l c o u n s e l, a re in s u f f ic ie n t to w a rr a n t a h e a ri n g ” ); P e o p le v . 2 1 F ig u e ro a , 7 2 2 N .Y .S .2 d 3 3 6 , 3 3 8 (S u p . C t. B ro n x C o .), af f ’d , 6 7 9 N .Y .S .2 d 3 0 4 (1 st D e p ’t 2 2 1998) ( r ej ect i ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m on t he mer i t s aft ernot i ng t hat Fi guer oa fa i l ed 2 3 to s u b m it a n a f

f ir m a tio n f

ro m h is f o rm e r a tto rn e y“ a n d
. . . of f er ed abs ol ut el

y no ex pl anat i on 2 4 f or his f ail ure t o d o so ” ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) )
. T h e s e c a s e s d e m o n s t r a t e , a tb e s t , t h a ta n a t t o r n e y 2 5 aff

i davi tw oul d have a i ded J enk i ns ’ s at t empt s t o s ecur e r el i ef on hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance 2 6 cl ai m ; t heydo nots how t hats uch an a ffi davi tw as r equi r ed bef or e the st at e courtw oul d 2 7 a d d r e s s t h e me r i t s o f t h a t c l a i m. Th e me r e p o s s i b i l i t yt h a ta s t a t e c o u r twi l l d e n yt h e c l a i m 2 8 d o e s n o t c o n s titu te a n e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e th a t p re v e n ts a d e f e n d a n t f ro m ra is in g it. 12 1 assistan ce claim b ase d o n an all eg ed erro r or o m issi o n o f tri al co u n sel. ”). 5 2 A re q u ire m e n t th a t a d e f e n d a n t alle g in g in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l m u st 3 e ith e r su b m it an a f f id a v it fro m h is a tto rn e yo r a n e x p lan a tio n o f w h yh e c a n n o t p re se n t 4 su c h a n a f

f id a v it fro m h is a tto rn e yis n o t is n o t an e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e th a t 5 “ p re v e n te d [ J e n k in s f ro m ] t im e ly f

ilin g ” h is c la im f

o r r e lie f. H o lla n d , 1 3 0 S . C t. a t 2 5 6 2
.1 R es pondent cont ends t hat t he onl y l et t er s t o Sm i t h as ki ng for an aff i davi t t hat are 6 2 d a ted w ith in th e lim itatio n s p e rio d , w h ich w e re n o t p r o v id e d b yJe n k in s to a n yc o u rt u n til 3 after re s pondentr ai s ed the t i m el i nes s obj ect i on t o hi s r enew ed fe der al habea s pet i t i on i n 4 20 08 , are fabri cat i on s. F or pu rposes of t his app eal , w e assum e the truth o f Je n kins’ s 5 a s s e rt io n th a t h e m a d e th e s e re q u e s ts o f S m ith o n o r a b o u t th e d a te s th a t a p p e a r o n th e le tte rs . 1 W e expr es s no vi ew , of cour s e, on t he mer i t s of J enki ns ’ s cl ai m . I n or dert o obt ai n 7 2 habea s r el i ef, J enki ns w oul d have t o es t abl i s h notonl yt hatcouns el fel l b el ow acc ept abl e 3 stan d ard s of per for m ance i n notadvi s i ng hi m of hi s pot ent i al expos ur e af t ert r i al , butal so 4 t hathe w as pr ej udi ced i n t hat he w oul d have acc ept ed a m or e favor abl e pl ea offeri f he ha d 5 b ee n p rop erlyad v ised
. S ee U n it ed S tat es v. G o rdo n , 1 5 6 F
. 3 d 3 7 6 , 3 8 0 -81 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ) 6 ( hol di ng t hatpet i t i oners uffe r ed pr ej udi ce “ i f hi s r el i ance on [couns el ’ s ] advi ce a ffe ct ed the 7 out come of t he pr ocee di ngs ”)
. A s not ed above, i ti s di s put ed w hethert her e eve rw as s uch 8 a pl ea of

fer
. M or eover , i n char act er i zi ng t he s ent ence as s ever e, w e do nots ugges tt hatt he 9 se n ten c e w a s u n f a ir o r e x c e ss iv e ; th e re c o rd b e f o re u s is in su f

f icie n t to f

o rm a n yju d g m e n t 1 0 on t ha ts u b

j e c t . W e n o t e o n l yt h a tt h e s e n t e n c e i s v e r yl o n g , a n d t h a tt h e h a b e a s s t a tu t e o f 1 1 lim itatio n s p re v e n ts a f e d e ra l in q u iryin to a c laim th a t ra ise s a n o n -f riv o lo u s c o n stitu tio n a l 1 2 q u e s tio n . 13 1 J enki ns coul d have t i m el yfi l ed hi s m ot i on i n s t at e courtacc om pani ed bya s w or n 2 s t at ement expl ai ni ng t hathe w as unabl e t o s ecur e an a ffi davi tfr om Sm i t h beca us e Sm i t h 3 h a d f

a iled to p ro v id e o n e d e sp ite J e n k in s’s re p e a ted tim e lyre q u e sts . H e th e re f o re c a n n o t 6 4 s how a ca us al r el at i ons hi p betw een the al l eged e xt r aor di naryci r cumst ance and the 5 la te n e s s o f

h is f ilin g . S e e V a lv e rd e , 2 2 4 F .3 d a t 1 3 4
. 6 A s our di ssent i ng coll eagu e po i nts ou t , t his con cl usi on i s hars h in t hat i tpreven t s 7 J enki ns fr om chal l engi ng an extr emel ys ever e s ent ence t hatm ayveryw el l have be en the 8 res ultof an i neff ect i ve att orney . T hat, ho w ever, i s the co nsequ ence o f C on gress ’s 7 9 decis i on t o im po se a l i m i t at i on s peri od on peti t i on s for habeas co rpus. S uch l i m i t at i on s 1 0 st atutes byt heirnatur e precl ud e sym pathet i c or m eri t ori ou s cl ai m s as w el l as fr i vo l ou s14 1 ones . A nd t he doctr i ne of e qui t abl e t ol l i ng does notper m i tus t o excus e compl i ance w i t h 2 the s tatu te w h en ev er a p o tential lym erit o ri o u s claim is atstak e, or w h en ev er a p eti ti o n er 3 fac es an es peci al l ys ever e s ent ence . N ordoes t hatdoctr i ne al l ow t ol l i ng w heneve ra 4 p e tit io n e r m u st f a c e th e d a u n tin g p ro c e d u ra l o b sta c les to o b tain in g h a b e a s re v iew w ith o u t 5 t he as s i s t ance of couns el
. See Sm i t h, 208 F. 3d at18 ( hol di ng t hatpet i t i oner ’ s pr o s e 6 s t atus di d notm er i tequi t abl e t ol l i ng) , ci t i ng T ur nerv. J ohns on, 177 F. 3d 390, 392 ( 5t h 7 C i r. 19 99 ) ( “W e hav e held t hat nei t her a pl ai nti ff’s unfam i l i ari t yw i t h the l egal pr ocess 8 norhi s l ack of

r epr es ent at i on dur i ng t he appl i cabl e fi l i ng per i od m er i t s equi t abl e 9 t ol l i ng. ”)
. A l t hough w e ar e mi ndful t hatequi t abl e pr ocedur e demands fl exi bi l i t yi n t he 1 0 a p p ro a c h to e q u itab le in ter v e n tio n , se e H o llan d , 1 3 0 S . C t. at 2 5 6 3 , tha t f lex ib ili tyc a n n o t 1 1 s tr e tc h b e y o n d th e re q u ir e m e n t th a t a n e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e p re v e n t tim e ly f ilin g . 1 2 Jenkins di d n ot fi l e his fede ral peti t i on w i t hin the all ow able t i m e l i m i t , and his 1 3 expl anat i on forhi s fai l ur e t o do s o boi l s dow n t o t he cl ai m t hathe w as t hw ar t ed bya 1 4 m is ta k e n re a d in g o f N e w Y o rk c a s e la w to im p o s e a re q u ir e m e n t th a t d id n o t in f a c t e x is t. 1 5 U n d e r t h e la w , s u c h a m is ta k e n b e lie f is n o t a b a s is f

o r e q u ita b le to llin g . 16 17 CONCL US I ON 1 8 F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D
.1 1 B ARRI

NG TON D . PARKER, Circ uit Judg e , diss e nti ng : 2 B e c a

u s e I b e l i e v e th atJ e nki n s ’ s p e t i t i o nw a s e nt i t l e d t o th e b e n e f

i t s o f e qu i t a b l e t o l l i n g , I 3 re sp e c tf

ully dis se nt. Th e ma

jority ’s a pp ro a c h in

my view i nc or

po ra te s tw o s ignif

ic ant error s. It 4 inc or

re c tly analy zes a c on fu sin gbo dy

of New Y or k c a selaw d e a lin gwi th t

heproc e dural 5 prerequisites to pursuing a n ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim in state cour t. And more 6 i mp o rt ant l y, i tf

a i l s m e an i n g f

u l l y t o e n g a g e i nth e e qu i t a b l e an a l ys i s r e qu i r e d

b y Holland v. 7 Florida , 130 S. Ct . 2549 (2010). 8 Belot v. Burgesets out a three -par t standard f

or re viewinga district cour t’s decision not to 9 equitably

toll AEDPA’s limi tations period. 490 F.3d 201, 206- 07 (2d Cir. 2007). F irst, “[i] f a 10 district court denie s equitable tolling on thebelief that the decision wa s compelled by law, that the 11 g overningleg al standards would not permit equitable tolling in the c ircumstance s—that aspec t of 12 the dec ision should be reviewe d de novo .” Id. at 20 6. Se c on d, “ if thede c isi on

to d e ny tol lin gwa s 13 premised on a

fac tual finding , the fa ctual findingshould be revie wed f or cle ar error .” Id. Third, 14 “if the c ourt has under stood the g overninglaw cor rec tly , and has ba sed its decision on finding s of fac t which were supported by the evidenc e, but the challeng e is addre ssed to whether the cour t’s 15 16 decision is one of those w ithin the rang e of possible pe rmissible decisions, then appe llate re view 17 will be . . . for a

buse of discretion.” Id. at 206-07. 18 Although themajority declines to de termine the a ppropriatestandard of

revie w, I think the 19 district court’s de cision to deny equitable tolling should berevie wed de novo since it was ba sed 20 on an in c or re c t inte rp re tatio n o f what th e law re qu ir e d. Th e dis tric t c ourt he ld t hat pe tit ion e r’ s 21 inability

to satisfy a state la w re quiringthat he providean attorney aff idavit in order to see k post22 conviction re lief on the grounds of inef fec tive assistanceof counse lc ou ld n ot constitute an2 1 e xtra ordin ary

c irc ums tanc e . In th e dis tric t c ourt ’s view “ho ldi ngthat su c h a statelaw re qu ir e me nt 2 constitutes an extraordinar y circ umstance w ould mean that every petitioner claiming inef

fec tive 3 assistanceof counse l would be able to e quitably toll their claim pendingrec eipt of an a ffidavit.” 4 See B elot , 490 F.3d at 207-08 (findingdistrict court dec ision that temporary prison lockdown 5 could not qualify

as an e x traordina

ry circ umstance w arrantingequitable tolling w as “a rguably a 6 matter of la

w”) . After Holland, whic h w a s d e c ide d a ft e r t hedis tric t c ourt ’s op ini on , th is 7 analy

tically rig id approa ch employed by the district court is no long er a ppropriate . As Justice 8 Breyer pointed out, c ourts consideringwhether to toll AEDPA’s lim itations period arecourts of 9 equity

whose hallmarks are“fle x ibility ,” the avoidanceof “me chanic al rules,”and the recognition 10 that “spec ific circumstances, of ten hard to predict in adva nce, c ould warrant spec ial treatment in 11 an appropriate c ase.” Holland, 130 S. Ct . at 2563 (c itations omi tted). The district c ourt should 12 have , b ut did n ot, e xami nethee qu iti e s sp e c if ic to Je nkins ’s a

pp lic atio n. Ins te a d, it tre ate d h im a s 13 a stere oty pic a l a pp lic ant. Ap ply

ingthec or

re c t g ov e rn ingle g a l st and ard , I be lie vethat Jenkin s 14 was e ntitled to equitable tolling. See B elot , 490 F.3d at 206-07. 15 A p e tit ion e r s e e kin ge qu ita bletol lin gmus t sh ow(1 ) t hat e xtra ordin ary

c irc ums tanc e s 16 prevented him from filinghis petition on t ime, and (2) that he ac ted with rea sonable dilig encein 17 pursuinghis rights duringthe period he see ks to toll
. Holland, 1 30 S. Ct . at 25 62 ; Di az v . Ke lly , 18 51 5 F .3 d 1 49 , 1 53 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ); Baldayaque v . United States , 338 F.3d 145, 150 ( 2d Cir. 2003). 19 J enkins, in my

view, mee ts both parts of this test. 20 As to the first par t, J enkins believe d, quite rea sonably , that in order to bring a n ineffe ctive 21 assistanceof counse l claim in state court, hewas re quired to provide a n aff idavit from Oliver 22 Smith, his trial attorney , concerningthe adviceor strate gy beingchalleng ed. Jenkins pursued the3 1 aff idavit but, despite diligent e ffor ts, was unable to reac h his lawyer f or nea rly two year s. For 2 e xamp le , in

a le tte r t o Sm ithdate d July 25 , 2 00 3, a

pp ro ximate ly

on e we e k a ft e r Je nkins ’s 3 application for

leaveto appeal his state court convic tion was denied, Jenkins wrote, “Mr . Smith 4 you ne ve r t old

meIwa s f

a c ing50 ye ars imp ri so nment. Yo u to ld m e 10 -1 2 ye ars is what I wa s 5 fa c ingif

welos s [si c ] tria l. I

ne e d a n a ff ida vit from you statin gthi s o r t

hepa rt of there c ord th at 6 states this.” J enkins sent a f ollow up letter makinga similar re quest several months later. 7 Notably , J enkins sent both of these le tters prior to the e xpiration of the statutory period for

filing a 8 h a b e a s p e t i t i o nr a i s i n gani n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o un s e lc l a i m . M o r e o v e r , e v e na f t e r f i n a l l y 9 rec eivinga re sponse from Smith, it t ook two more letter s from Jenkins before hefinally rec eived 10 there qu e ste d a ff

ida vit . Sm ith ’s a ff

ida vit , whic h c on fi rm e d Jenkin s’ s c onte nti on that heha d n ot 11 been advised of his sentenc ing e xposure, wa s dated ne arly threeyear s after

his first reque st. 12 These c ircumstance s support equitable tolling. See B aldayaque , 338 F.3d at 152-53 (“[A]n
att o r n e y’ s c o n d

u c t , i f i ti s s u f f i c i e nt l y e gr e g i o u s , m ay c o n s t i tut e th e s o rto f ‘ e x tr a o r d i n ar

y 13 circ umstances’ that would justify the application of equitable tolling to the one -year limit ations 14 15 pe ri od

of AE DPA .” ); see also Holland, 130 S. Ct . at 2563-64 (“ Several lower c ourts have sp e c if ic a lly he ld that un

prof e ssi on a l atto rn e y

c on du c t ma

y , in c e rt a in c irc ums tanc e s . . . amou nt t o 16 17 egreg ious behavior a nd cre ate a

n extraordinary

circ umstance that warrants equitable tolling .” 18 (citingcase s)). 19 The Ne w York c ase la w on whethe r an attorney aff idavit is actually

require d under the se 20 circ umstances is, cha ritably stated, conf

used. Any

rea sonably

cautious lawyer reviewingthe New 21 York c ase la

w on this issue could easily concludethat such an a ffidavit wa s require d or that, at a 2 2 m i n i mum , p r o c e e d i n gw i th o uts u c hana f f i d av i tw a s ani mp r

u d e nts t ep th atc o urt e d

s umm ar y4 1 denial of theapplication. Similarly , a pro se petitioner, attemptingto parse this body of ca se law 2 could ea sily

have c oncluded that a

n aff idavit or other e xplanation from the attorney whose 3 a ssi sta

nc e is b e ingc halle ng e d w a s r e qu ir e d, and that f a ilureto p ro vid e on e wo uld havebe e n f

ata l 4 to an ineff

ective a ssistance of c ounsel claim. F or example, in 1998, the First Department found a 5 defendant’s motion to vacatehis conviction under C.P.L . § 440.10 on the grounds of inef fec tive 6 a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l to be“ [un]re viewa bleon dire c t a pp e a l si nc e it [w a s] ba se d o n f a c ts de ho rs 7 the re cord a

nd trial counsel . . . ha d no opportunity to expl ain her

trial tactics.” People v

. 8 Figueroa , 679 N.Y.S.2d 304 (N.Y. A pp. Div. 1998). In aff

irming denial of anothe r such motion 9 in 2003, the First Department noted that defe ndant’s submissions on his motion “did not include 10 aff

idavits from trial counse l or from a ny of the unc alled witnesses.” Pe op lev . R os ario , 765 11 N. Y. S.2 d 3 20 (N .Y . App . D iv. 20 03 ). Mo rere c e nt c a se s in theSe c on d a

nd F ourt h D epa rtme nts 12 havesim ila

rly re je c te d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la ims ba se d in

pa rt on de fend ant’ s 13 failureto provide an attorney aff idavit. See People v . Smiley , 886 N.Y.S.2d 893 (N.Y. A pp. Div. 14 2009) (notingthat defendant’s alleg ations “[we]re not supported by any other a ffidavit or 15 e vid e nc e ” ); People v . DeJ esus , 8 35 N. Y. S.2 d 7 92 (N .Y . App . D iv. 20 07 ) (no tin gthat de fend ant 16 “d[id] not include an a ffidavit from trial counsel”) . Moreove r, in the opinions cited above , the 17 courts did not mention that an explanation for the lac k of an a ffidavit would havesuffice d. 18 Iro nic a lly , th e state ’s op po sition to Je nkins ’s se c tio n 4 40 .1 0 mo tio n c ri tic ize d h im f or no t 19 prese nting a

n attorney aff idavit. In that opposition, the g overnme nt emphasized the absenc e of the 20 a ff

ida vit and sp e c ulate d th at th e re a so n f or Jenkins ’s failureto atta c h o newa s “be c a us e de fend ant 21 knew that if heasked, trial counsel would reply that they had, indee d, discussed maximum and 22 minimumsentenc es.” J.A. 72-73. Howe ver, on a ppeal, a fter theaff

idavit was provided a

nd the5 1 sp e c ulatio n p ro ve d b a se le ss, theg ov e rnme nt c ha ng e d ta c ks , c onte ndingthat su c h a n a ff ida vit wa s 2 not require d. 3 Unsy

mpathetic to J enkins’s petition, the majority makes much of

their view that New 4 York state c ourts do not “inflexibl y” re quire that de fenda nts claiming ine ffe ctive assistanc e 5 pre se nt a

su pp or tin ga ff ida vit from t hec halle ng e d atto rn e y . M a jority Op . _ _; See also J

enkins v

. 6 Gree ne , 6 4 6 F
. S u

p p . 2 d 6 1 5 , 6 2 2 ( S
. D
. N
. Y
. 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ [ S ] u c ha r e qu i r e m e nti s n e i th e r

s t atut o ri l y 7 require d nor always a pp lie d b y New Y or k c ourt s”(e mph a sis a dd e d) ). Th e ma jority c ite s to c a se s 8 where Ne w York c ourts require e ith e r an atto rn e y a ff ida vit or an explanation for its absenc e, and 9 sug g est that in lieu of the af fidavit, J enkins should have supplied such a n explanation in a sworn 10 state me nt a c c omp anyinghis a ff ida vit
. The fa ct that New

York c ourts may

not “inflexibl y” re quire 1 1 s u chanaf

fi d av i ts i d es t ep s th e f

ac tth ats o m e c o urt s ap p ar ent l y d o an d s o m e d o n o t . M y

re ad i n g 12 of thec a selaw i s th at su c h a n a ff ida vit prob a bly sh ou ld b e su

bmi tte d. Th e ma

jority be lie ve s th at 13 su c h a

n a ff ida vit ne e d n ot b e su

bmi tte d. I f c ourt

of a pp e a ls j udg e s c an h on e stly dis a gre e ov e r t

his 14 point of law it seems to me wrongfor a court of e quity

to close the c ourt to a pro se litigant who 15 happene d to find himself on the wrongside of this debate . This is especially so wherethe cost of 1 6 h i s c h o i c ei s ana d d i t i o n a lf o rty ye ar s o f

i n c ar c e r at i o nf

o r a m anwh o , a s i n d i c at e d

b e l o w , m ay 17 well haverec eived c onstitut ionally ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. Where e quity is the point of 1 8 d ep artur e , th i s c o n s t e l l at i o no f c i r c um s t an c e s i s , I b e l i e v e , e x tr a o r d i n ar y. 1 9 As t o th e s ec o n d p arto f th e e qu i t ab l e t o l l i n g an al y s i s , Ih av e l i tt l e d i ff i cu l ty co n cl u d i n g 20 that J enkins ac ted with “re asonablediligenc e” during theperiod that heseeks to toll. In order to 21 se c ure thea ff

ida vit , Jenkin s wro teSmit

h at le a st f

ivele tte rs , f

our o f whic h in c lud e d a

n e xplic it 22 reque st for a suppor ting a ffidavit, and two of

which we re se nt prior to the expiration of the6 1 statutory

period for

bring ing a

habea s petition. His efforts we re c ertainly rea sonable for

a prisoner 2 with relatively

limit ed mea

ns of communication. Holland, 130 S. Ct . at 2565 (“ The dilig ence 3 require d for e quitable tolling purpose s is reasona ble dilige nce, not maximum feasible dilige nce.” 4 (i ntern a l c itatio ns and qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) ); Baldayaque , 3 38 F .3 d at 15 3 ( “ Th e sta nd ard is 5 no t ‘ e xtre medil ig e nc e ’ o r ‘ e xcepti on a l di lig e nc e ,’ it i s re as on ab ledil ig e nc e . . . . [T]hedis tric t 6 court should ask: did the petitioner a ct as dilig ently as re asonably

could havebeen e xpecte d un de r 7 thec irc um sta nc es? ” (e mphasis in original)). 8 Th e signif

ic ant b a c kd

ro p to thi s analysis is t

hat had Jenkin s b e e n p e rm itt e d to fi lehis 9 petition, he, on the basis of the record as it now stands, would haveprese nted a c ompelling c ase 10 that he re ceive d constitutionally ineffe ctive represe ntation. At trial J enkins was c onvicted of two 11 c ounts of

a ssa ult and se ntenc e d totw o c on se c uti vetw e nty-f iveye ar p ri so n term s f

or a tot a l 12 se ntenc e of

fi ft y ye ars . In h is a ff

ida vit su bmi tte d to thedis tric t c ourt in s up po rt

of his ha be a s 13 pe tit ion , Jenkin s maint a ine d th at Smi th did n ot i nf or m hi m th at hi s to ta l sentenc inge xpos ure wa s 14 fi ft

y ye ars . Jenkin s argue s th at Smi th c onve ye d tw o s epa ra teple a of fers of e ight a nd se ve n ye ars 15 to him prior to trial. Howeve r, base d on Smith’s advicethat J enkins would likely have rece ived a 16 te n to tw e lveye ar s e ntenc e if helos t at tria l, a

nd that heha d a

“ 50 -5 0”c ha

nc e of a c qu itt a l, Je nkins 17 de c lin e d b oth

ple a of fers . N ota

bly, Jenkin s a lso su

bmi tte d to thedis tric t c ourt an a ff ir matio n f ro m 18 Smith c on fi rm ingthat hec omm un ic ate d v ari ou s p le a

of fers to Je nkins , b ut t

hat he“ did

no t in fo rm 19 Mr . Jenkin s th at hi s e xpos ure wa s 5 0 ye ars .”Th e sefa c ts s tand un c ontr a dic te d o n th e c ur rent 20 rec ord. 21 “ To a dv anc e an in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la im i n th e c onte xt of a ple a , th e de fend ant 22 mus t sh owthat ( 1) c ouns e l’ s p e rf or manc e fe ll b e low

an o bje c tiv e sta

nd ard of re a so na blene ss, and

(2 ) b ut7

for c ounsel’s unprof

essional er

rors, the result of the proc eedingwould have be en different.” United 1 2 States v. Doe , 537 F.3d 204, 213- 14 (2d Cir. 2008) (c itations omi tted). With respect to the fir st prong , 3 thi s Co ur

t ha s r e c ognize d th at th e Sixth Ame ndme nt right t o e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c onte mpl ate s 4 competent profe ssional advice during ple a neg otiations. Padilla v. Kentucky , 130 S. Ct . 1473, 1482- 5 86 (2 01 0) ; Un ited S tates v . B ro wn , 623 F.3d 104, 112 ( 2d Cir. 2010). In particula r, counse l’s failureto 6 p r o p e rl y a dv i s e a

c l i e nt o f h i s s e nt e n c i n ge xp o s ur e , s u c ha s th e p o s s i b i l i ty o f c o n s e c ut i v e s e nt e n c e s , m ay 7 indicate c onstitut ionally ineffe ctive assistanc e. See Purdy v. U nited States , 208 F.3d 41, 45 ( 2d Cir. 8 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ [ C ] o un s e lmu s tc o mmun i c at e t o th e d e f e n d antth e t e r

m s o f th e p l e a o f f e r , an d s h o u l d u s u a l l y 9 inform the def

endant of the strengths and wea

knesses of thecaseag ainst him, as well as the alternative 10 se ntenc e s to wh ic h h e wi ll m os t li ke ly bee xpos e d. ” (c itatio ns omi tte d) ); see also Dav is v. Greiner , 428 11 F.3d 81, 88- 90 (2d Cir. 2005); Cullen v. United States , 1 94 F .3 d 4 01 , 4 04 (2 d Ci r. 19 99 ); Un ited S tates 1 2 v. Gordon , 156 F.3d 376, 380 ( 2d Cir. 1998). 13 With respe ct to the sec ond prong , “a de fenda nt’s statements that he would have ac cepte d a plea 14 of fer i n c omb inatio n w ithso meob je c tiv e e vid e nc e , s uc h a s a signif ic ant s e ntenc ingdis pa

ri ty , is 15 sufficie nt to support a prejudicefinding .” Brown , 6 23 F .3 d at 11 2 ( c itatio n a nd qu otatio n ma

rk s 16 omitted). Here , J enkins has averre d that he would haveacc epted the ple a off er if heknew the le ngth of 17 these ntenc e heoth e rw isewo uld havefa c e d. Thus , a s a

re su lt o f a

pp arently inade qu atea ssi sta

nc e from 18 his trial counsel at a cruc ial stag e of theproce eding s, J enkins is servingwhat the majority conce des is an 19 “extremely

severe” sentencethat apparently could havebeen f

our or f ive times shorter ha d he been 20 appropriately

counsele d. Majority

Op. __. 2 1 Holland

e mph a size s th at th e ro leof c ourt s si tti ngin e qu ity

is t o “ re lie veha

rd sh ips wh ic h, from 22 time to tim e, arise from a hard a nd fast adherenc e to more a bsolute leg al rules . . . .” Holland, 130 S. Ct
.8 1 at2 5 6 3 (qu o t i n g Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 248 (1944)). Holland 2 also emphasizes that “[t] he fle x ibility inhere nt in equitable proc edureenable s courts to meet ne w 3 situations that demand equitable inter vention, and to ac cord all the relief ne cessa ry to corre ct par

ticular 4 injusti ces.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitt ed). This Court has simil arly rec ognized 5 that “[u] nder c ommon law principles it is well established that equitablediscretion may sometimes be 6 exercised to avoid ha rm to . . . a par

ty that would be the c onsequenc e of theunflinchingapplication of 7 leg al principles.” Fin. One Pub. Co. Ltd. v. Lehman Bros. Spec ial Fin., Inc. , 414 F.3d 325, 344 ( 2d Cir. 8 2005). The ma

jority ’s approach, I

respe ctfully

sug g est, neither recognizes nor applies any of these 9 principles which, in my view, tilt sharply

in J enkins’s favor. 1 0 Atth e e n d o f th e d ay

J enki n s ’s p et i t i o nm i ghtwe l lfa i l
. M o s td o . Ho we v er , b ef o re b ei n g 11 require d to spend an a dditional forty year s incarc erated as a

result of what could well havebeen 12 constitutionally

ineffe ctive assistanc e of trial counsel, I would permit his petition, at the very least, to be 13 rec eived a

nd examined by

the district court.