Opinion ID: 3164887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eleventh Circuit Proceedings

Text: This Court granted Stewart a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on two issues: whether the district court erred (1) in dismissing Stewart’s § 2254 petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); and (2) in concluding that the facts alleged in the § 2254 petition, accepted as true, did not entitle Stewart to any equitable tolling, or sufficient equitable tolling, to make his petition timely. 8 On appeal, attorney Norgard argued that equitable tolling should apply for the entire time period that Stewart was represented by CCRC, and especially from July 15, 2005, when Stewart signed his Rule 3.851 motion, to July 25, 2005, when 7 In the reply, Norgard mentioned the delay, but only to defend his actions by saying that he prepared the § 2254 petition in a reasonable amount of time under the circumstances. 8 Stewart’s § 2254 petition raised eight substantive claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel during the third penalty-phase proceedings. This ineffective-counsel claim is a substantial constitutional claim, which in turn supports the issuance of a COA on the equitable tolling issue. See Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2836 (2015). 9 Case: 14-11238 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 10 of 15 Stewart’s Rule 3.851 motion was filed. Norgard, however, did not brief the issue of whether equitable tolling should apply during his own representation of Stewart, including the period between June 26, 2010 and January 6, 2011. Even if Stewart obtained equitable tolling from July 15, 2005 through July 25, 2005 (when his Rule 3.851 motion was filed)–meaning his Rule 3.851 motion was effectively filed 4 days before the July 19 AEDPA deadline–and then was granted statutory tolling from July 25, 2005 through June 25, 2010 (when his Rule 3.851 proceedings concluded), Stewart’s § 2254 petition would still be untimely because his federal habeas deadline would have been June 29, 2010, and attorney Norgard did not file Stewart’s § 2254 petition until January 6, 2011, which was 191 days after June 29, 2010. Accordingly, this Court appointed the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Middle District of Florida as additional counsel for Stewart, to brief the issue of equitable tolling for the time period between July 25, 2005 and January 6, 2011. Attorney Robert Godfrey has filed a supplemental brief asserting, inter alia, that Norgard has an actual conflict of interest in representing Stewart and that new substitute counsel should be appointed to represent Stewart as to the equitable tolling issues in this case. 10 Case: 14-11238 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 11 of 15