2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-22-2006 

# C ri s t in v . W olfe P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1626

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C ri s t in v . W o l fe " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1552. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1552NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N THE UNI TE D ST ATE S COURT

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ C as e N o: 05- 1626 RO S AL I NDA C RI S T I N, A ppel l ant v. WI L L I AM J . WOLF E ; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF T HE CO UNT Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T H E S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

_____________ O n A ppeal fr om the U ni t ed St at es

D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C. Ci vi l A c t i on N o. 00 - c v- 03 50 6- J P) Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. J ohn P. Ful l am

_____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February3, 2006 BE F OR E : M CK E E , S M I T H a n d VAN AN T WER P E N,

C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed February22, 2006)

_____________T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) . O urr evi ew of a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l egal concl us i ons is p le n a ry. Johns on v. R os em eye r , 1 1 7 F . 3 d 1 0 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). W h ere a d istri ct co u rt h o ld s a n e v id e n tia ry p ro c e e d in g , its f in d in g s o f

f a c t a re re v ie w e d f

o r c le a r e rr o r. Love v. Mor t on , 112 F. 3d 131, 133 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . Fi nal l y , w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s is s u e s . N

ar a v. Fr ank , 2 6 4 F . 3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge : A ppel l antR os al i nda C r i s t i n appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of herpet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2254 on the gr ounds of unt i m el i nes s and p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt. W e w ill a f

f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 1 I. R os al i nda C r i s t i n and herhus band, M art i n C r i s t i n, w er e tr i ed in a b se n tia i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas forPhi l adel phi a C ountyon tw o count s eac h of theftby dece pt i on, for tune- t el l i ng, and cr i m i nal cons pi r acy . T he C om m onw eal th ar gued t o the tr i al courtthatthes e in a b se n tia pr ocee di ngs w er e w arr ant ed i n partbeca us e the C r i s t i ns w er e gyps i es . D ur i ng the tr i al , the C r i s t i ns ’ couns el cr os s - exami ned the i nves t i gat i ng pol i ce of fi cerand el i ci t ed the fa ctthatthe C r i s t i ns w er e gyps i es , and the off i cert es t i fi ed on r edi r ectexami nat i on aboutthe al l eged c r i m i nal habi t s of the gyps ycomm uni ty . T he C r i s t i ns w er e convi ct ed bya j uryon O ct ober13, 1994, and s ubs equent l ys ent ence d in a b se n tia t o t he maxi m um perm i s s i bl e t erm of i m pr i s onm entforeac h cr i m e, t o run cons ecut i vel y . T hi s l ed t o a t ot al i m pr i s onm entt erm of fi ft een t o thi r tyy ear s , w hi ch w as out s i de the s t at e s ent enci ng gui del i nes r ange f orthe cha r ged off

ens es . T he C r i s t i ns ’ t r i al3

couns el di d notfi l e an a ppeal fr om the convi ct i on ors ent ence w i thi n thi r tyday s as r e q u i r e d b yP e n n s y l v a n i a l a w. In D ecem ber of 1 99 4, R osal i nd a C ri st i n w as apprehen ded i n H arr i s C ou nty , T exas, and r eturned t o Phi l adel phi a. H erhus band s ubs equent l ys urr ender ed. O n J anuary12, 1995, M r s . C r i s t i n fi l ed a Pet i t i on forT r i al i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas , al l egi ng that d u e to m isre p re se n tatio n s b yh e r h u sb a n d , sh e h a d n o k n o w led g e th a t sh e w a s re q u ire d to a p p e a r a t h e r O c to b e r 1 3 , 1 9 9 4 , tri a l. T h e c o u rt d e n ied th is p e tit io n a n d M rs. C ristin d id n o t f ile a n a p p e a l. M rs. C ristin th e n re tain e d n e w c o u n se l an d f iled a m o tio n f

o r p o sts ent ence r econs i der at i on i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas . T hi s m ot i on w as al s o deni ed and notappea l ed. A ct i ng thr ough hernew couns el , M r s . C r i s t i n then fi l ed a mot i on forcol l at er al re lie f u n d e r t h e P e n n s y lv a n ia P o s t- C o n v ic tio n R e lie f A c t ( “ P C R A ” ), 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 9541 et s eq . M r s . C r i s t i n t hen r et ai ned herform ertr i al couns el and fi l ed an a m ended PC R A pet i t i on, al l egi ng i n partthathercons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o due pr oces s w er e deni ed b yh e r tria l in a b se n tia , thathers ent ence vi ol at ed the Ei ghth A m endment ’ s pr ohi bi t i on of cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent , thatherappel l at e couns el r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance byfai l i ng t o appea l the deni al of herm ot i on fora new tr i al , thatthe cha r ges w er e not su p p o rte d b yth e e v id e n c e , an d th a t th e f o rtu n e -te lli n g sta tu te a s a p p lied to M rs. C ristin w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a llyd isc rim in a to ry . A lth o u g h a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g w a s o rig in a lly s chedul ed, M r s . C r i s t i n s ubs equent l yel ect ed t o r es ton the r ecor d. O n J une 13, 1997, t he4

PC R A courtdeni ed M r s . C r i s t i n’ s pet i t i on. M r s . C r i s t i n t hen r et ai ned a thi r d att orneyand fi l ed an appeal of the deni al of her amended PC R A pet i t i on w i th the Penns y l vani a Super i orC our t . O n February1, 1999, t he S u p e rio r C o u rt a f

f irm e d th e P C R A c o u rt’s d e n ial o f h e r P C R A p e tit io n . M rs. C ristin d id n o t su b m it a p e tit io n se e k in g a llo w a n c e o f a p p e a l in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt. I n the meant i m e, on J une 5, 1997, M r . C r i s t i n had fi l ed a pro se p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r t h e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . See C r is t i n v. B r ennan , 281 F. 3d 404, 408 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . O n A pr i l 11, 2000, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt g ra n te d M r. C ri s tin ’s p e titio n . S e e id . at 40 9 . M rs. C ri sti n then retaine d M r. C r i s t i n’ s couns el , w ho on J ul y11, 2000, fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus on M r s . C r i s t i n’ s behal f. A ct i on on M r s . C r i s t i n’ s habea s pet i t i on w as s t ay ed pendi ng the o u tcom e o f th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s ap p ea l of the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er g ran ti n g M r. C r i s t i n’ s habea s pet i t i on. O n F eb rua ry2 7 , 2 0 0 2 , w e re v erse d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of M r. C ri sti n ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n in a p re c e d e n tial o p in io n , h o ld in g th a t M r. C ristin h a d p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d h is c la im s b e c a u s e o f h is f a ilu re to a p p e a l a d v e rs e d e c is io n s in th e s ta te c o u rt s . See i d. at409- 12. W e al s o hel d thatM r . C r i s t i n’ s pr ocedur al defa ul t s coul d notbe ex cu sed ev en if M r. C ri sti n “u n w itti n g ly ” f ail ed to f il e the n ec essa ryap p ea ls, an d that M r. C ristin c o u ld n o t re lyo n th e a lleg e d lyin e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

h is P C R A c o u n se l to e sta b lish c a u se b e c a u se h e d id n o t h a v e a S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to re p re se n tatio n a t h isW e not ed i n C r is t i n v. B r ennan th a t “th e a w k w a rd n o tio n th a t o n e c a n b e a c tu a lly 2 in n o c e n t o f

a se n ten c e , alth o u g h g u iltyo f th e u n d e rly in g c rim e , h a s a rise n m o st o f ten in c a p ital c a se s.” 2 8 1 F .3 d a t 4 2 1 . W e f u rth e r n o ted th a t th e c o u rts w h ich h a d e x ten d e d th is aw kw ar d not i on t o non- capi t al cas es had “uni form l ydone s o i n the cont extof t es t i ng t he fac tual fi ndi ngs on w hi ch a pa r t i cul arnon- capi t al s ent ence i s bas ed, s uch as pr i or convi ct i ons . ” I

d. at 42 2 . A cc o rdin g ly , w e h eld th at th is no ti o n h ad n o ap p li ca ti o n to M r. C r i s t i n’ s cas e bec aus e w e had “ no bas i s forconcl udi ng thats om e fa ctual fi ndi ng at s ent enci ng w as err oneous . ” Id . 5 P C R A h e a ri n g . See i d. at420. Fi nal l y , w e hel d thatM r . C r i s t i n had nots how n “ac tual in n o c e n c e ” o f

h is a lle g e d ly ex c e s s iv e te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t. S e e id
. at420- 22. 2 M e a n w h ile, o n Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 1 , the D istric t C o u rt o rd e re d th e C o m m o n w e a lth to f ile a re s p o n s e b ri e f

a d d re s s in g th e tim e lin e s s o f M rs . C ri s tin ’s h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n . T he C om m onw eal th r es ponded thatherpet i t i on w as t i m e- barr ed underthe one- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od i n the A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ct( “A E D PA ”) , 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) . I n r epl y , M r s . C r i s t i n di d notcont es tthe unt i m el i nes s of her pet i t i on, buts he ar gued thats he w as ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng beca us e the couns el s he r et ai ned forherappea l i n the Penns y l vani a Super i orC our tneveri nform ed herthathe w as notfi l i ng a pet i t i on foral l ow ance of appe al i n the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t , never e x p lain e d to h e r th a t sh e c o u ld f ile a p e tit io n f

o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s in f

e d e ra l co u rt, and neve rexpl ai ned t o herthe dea dl i nes fors uch a f i l i ng. O n Jun e 10 , 20 02 , the D i stri ctC ou rtheld an ev i den t i aryheari ng on w hetherM rs . C r i s t i n w as ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng of A E D PA ’ s one- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od. A tt he hear i ng, M r s . C r i s t i n admi t t ed thats he had ne veras ked herSuper i orC our tcouns el i f he had fi l ed a pe t i t i on foral l ow ance of appe al i n the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t , and that6

he had ne vert ol d herthathe had done s o. H erSuper i orC our tcouns el al s o t es t i fi ed that he w as notr et ai ned byM r s . C r i s t i n t o fi l e s uch a pe t i t i on, and thathe had nott ol d heror any on e el se that he had fi l ed o r w ou l d fil e such a peti t i on . F i nall y , M rs . C ri st i n als o a d mi t t e d th a ts h e h a d c o n s u l t e d wi th a p r i s o n l e g a l a i d e a b o u tf i l i n g a n o u t - o f

- t i me p eti ti o n fo r all o w an ce o f a p p ea l i n the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rtthree m o n ths b ef o re the one- y earA E D PA l i m i t at i ons per i od el aps ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen di s m i s s ed M r s . C r i s t i n’ s habea s pet i t i on, fi ndi ng both that itw as u n ti m elyan d that h er c lai m s w ere p roc ed u rall yd ef au lt ed . T h e D istri ct C o u rt cons equent l ydi d notr eac h t he mer i t s of M r s . C r i s t i n’ s cl ai m s , butnonethel es s gr ant ed a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tybeca us e C r i s t i n had r ai s ed “s ubs t ant i al ques t i ons of c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s .” II. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatM r s . C r i s t i n’ s unt i m el ypet i t i on fora w r i tof habea s corpus w as nots ubj ectt o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. E qui t abl e t ol l i ng of A E D PA ’ s oney earl i m i t at i ons per i od i s appr opr i at e onl yw her e extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s pr event ed th e p riso n e r f

ro m f ili n g a tim e lyh a b e a s p e tit io n a n d th e p riso n e r h a s e x e rc ise d re a so n a b le d ilig e n c e . LaC ava v. K yl er , 3 9 8 F . 3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). G en era ll y , an att o rne y ’s d e lin q u e n c yis c h a rg e a b le to a c lie n t a n d is n o t a b a s is f o r e q u ita b le to llin g . See Seit zi ng er v. R ead i ngH

osp. an d Med. C tr. , 165 F. 3d 236, 237 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( cons i der i ng th e tim e lin e s s o f

a c o m p la in t in a T itle V II c a s e ). See al s o Schl uet erv. V

ar ner , 384 F. 3d7

6 9 , 7 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ G e n e ra lly , in a n o n -c a p ital c a se . . . atto rn e ye rro r is n o t a su ff ici en t bas is fo r eq u it ab le t o ll ing o f th e A E D P A ’s on e-y ea r pe ri o d o f li m it ati o n . ”). N onethel es s , w e hel d i n Sei t z i ngerthatequi t abl e t ol l i ng w as appr opr i at e w her e “a di l i gentcl i entper s i s t ent l yques t i oned the l aw y eras t o w hetherhe had f i l ed the compl ai nt in ti m e, an d h e a ff

irm ati v elym isr ep rese n ted to h er tha t he h ad . ” 1 6 5 F . 3 d at 23 7 -38 . In contr as t , w e hel d i n Schl uet erthatw her e the del ayi n fi l i ng a habea s pet i t i on w as al l egedl ycaus ed byan att orney ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e a PC R A pet i t i on, and the att orneyhad al l egedl yr epr es ent ed thathe w oul d do s o, butthe pr i s onerhad nott aken “ aff i r m at i ve ste p s to e n su re th e tim e lyf ili n g o f a P C R A p e tit io n ,” a n d th e p riso n e r d id n o t “a ttem p t to as cert ai n . . . w hether[the att orney ] , i n fac t , had fi l ed a PC R A pet i t i on, ” the c ir c u m s ta n c e s d id n o t w a rr a n t e q u ita b le to llin g . See 384 F. 3d at77- 78. W e r eas oned that ev en if th e a tt o rne y ’s all eg ed m isr ep rese n tat ion am o u n ted to an “e x tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e ,” th e p ri s o n e r h a d n o t e x e rc is e d re a s o n a b le d ilig e n c e . S e e id . I n the ci r cumst ance s of M r s . C r i s t i n’ s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydeci ded th a t eq u itab le to lli n g w a s n o t w a rra n ted . H e r S u p e rio r C o u rt c o u n se l’s a lleg e d f a ilu re to i nform herthathe w as no l ongerr epr es ent i ng herand thathe w as notfi l i ng a pet i t i on for al l ow ance of appe al w i th t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdi d notgi ve r i s e t o the s or tof aff i r m at i ve mi s r epr es ent at i ons pr es enti n Sei t z i ngerand Sch l ueter . M or eover , even i f her att orney ’ s al l eged f

ai l ur e t o i nform M r s . C r i s t i n of thes e fa ct s had r i s en t o the l evel of an “extr aor di naryci r cumst ance , ” M r s . C r i s t i n’ s ow n t es t i m onyes t abl i s hed thats he w asA ccor di ngl y , ourdeci s i on thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on does 3 n o t d e p e n d o n w h e th e r M rs . C ri s tin h a s a ls o p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d a ll o f

h e r c la im s . H ow ever , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entthatgi ven ourr eas oni ng i n C ris tin v. B r ennan and the fa ct s of M r s . C r i s t i n’ s cas e, M r s . C r i s t i n has pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed hercl ai m s . M or eover , herpr ocedur al defa ul t s cannotbe exc us ed forcaus e. Fi nal l y , s he has notes t abl i s hed heractual i nnocenc e of he rs ent ence beca us e s he has notpr ovi ded a basi s for concludi ng that the fa ctual fi nd i ng s ather sent encing w ere erroneou s. aw ar e of he ratt orney ’ s fai l ur e t o pet i t i on the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tforan al l ow ance of appe al atl eas tthr ee mont hs befor e the end of A E D PA ’ s one- y earper i od of l i m i t at i ons . G i ven thes e ci r cumst ance s , w e fi nd thati f M r s . C r i s t i n had exe r ci s ed rea so n ab le dili g en ce , sh e c o u ld h av e f il ed h er h ab ea s p eti ti o n in a tim elym an n er. A cc o rdin g ly , thes e c ir cu m stan ce s d o n o t w arran t equ it ab le t o ll ing o f A E D P A ’s on e-y ear l i m i t at i on s peri od . C on sequen t l y , the D i stri ctC ou rtproperl ydis m i ssed M rs . C r i s t i n’ s unt i m el yhabea s pet i t i on. 3 III . B eca us e M r s . C r i s t i n’ s unt i m el yhabea s pet i t i on w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed, the Di s tr i c tCo u r tc o r r e c t l yd e c l i n e d t o r e a c h th e me r i t s o f h e rc l a i ms . No n e th e l e s s , a s we al s o not ed i n C r is t i n v. B r ennan , s ee 2 8 1 F . 3 d at 42 2 , w e v iew the C ri sti n s’ in a b se n tia tr i a l a n d s e n t e n c i n g , a n d th e m a g n i tu d e o f th e i rs e n t e n c e s , w i th s k e p t i c i s m . A c c o r d i n g l y, i ti s w i th r el uct ance thatw e ar e cons tr ai ned t o hol d thatM r s . C r i s t i n fi l ed an unt i m el yand pr ocedur al l y - defa ul t ed habe as pet i t i on. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r w ill b e a f f ir m e d .