Opinion ID: 2746015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Right-to-Testify Claim

Text: We conclude reasonable jurists could not debate whether an evidentiary hearing was needed to resolve the right-to-testify claim because the claim was untimely. Ms. Edwards needed to file her § 2255 motion within one year of “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), which was -5- October 27, 2011.1 She timely filed her pro se motion on April 21, 2011, but her right-totestify claim was contained in her supplemental motion, which was filed outside the oneyear period on April 30, 2012.2 In the district court, Ms. Edwards conceded the supplemental motion was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations period, but argued the right-to-testify claim was not time-barred because it related back to the claim raised in the pro se motion that “counsel failed to call material witnesses.” See Reply, ECF No. 2540, ROA, Vol. 2 at 80 (quotations omitted). We disagree. The failure-to-call-material-witnesses claim in Ms. Edwards’s pro se § 2255 motion lists third parties who could have been called—it never hints that Ms. Edwards was one of those witnesses. See Mot., ECF No. 2488, ROA, Vol. 1 at 542-44. Thus, the right-to-testify claim did not “clarif[y] or amplif[y]” any claim in her original motion, but instead “seek[s] to add a new claim or to insert a new theory into the case.” United States v. Espinoza-Saenz, 235 F.3d 501, 504 (10th Cir. 2000); cf. S. Hospitality, Inc. v. Zurich 1 We issued our judgment in Ms. Edwards’s direct appeal on July 29, 2010. She did not seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. Thus, the statute of limitations for a § 2255 motion began running on October 27, 2010, and ended one year later on October 27, 2011. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 525 (2003) (recognizing when a defendant files a direct appeal, but does not seek certiorari, the conviction becomes final 90 days after the appellate judgment issues); Sup. Ct. R. 13.1. 2 No other tolling provisions apply because the record does not indicate government action which prevented Ms. Edwards from making a motion, a newlyrecognized right made retroactively applicable, or newly-discovered facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(2)-(4). Nor does this case present “extraordinary circumstances” that implicate equitable tolling. See United States v. Gabaldon, 522 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2008). -6- Am. Ins. Co., 393 F.3d 1137, 1142 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Where a litigant changes to a new theory on appeal that falls under the same general category as an argument presented to the trial court or presents a theory that was discussed in a vague and ambiguous way, the theory will not be considered on appeal.” (quotations omitted)). Reasonable jurists could not debate the right-to-testify claim did not relate back and was therefore untimely. An evidentiary hearing would not change that. A COA is not warranted.