|
|
|
| Filing Deadlines |
|
Bowles v. Russell,
No. 06-5306 (U.S., June 14, 2007): Filing Deadlines: Bowles is a prisoner in Ohio serving a sentence of 15 years to life for Murder. After he exhausted his state appeals, he proceeded to the federal courts in habeas corpus. His petition was denied. He thus had 30 days to appeal. He did not do it. However, the federal rules allow the district court to reopen the time to file notice of appeal for 14 days. Bowles filed a motion to do that and the district court granted the motion, setting explicit filing deadlines in a written order. Bowles filed notice of appeal in compliance with the court's written order; HOWEVER, the deadline set by the district court was outside the 14 days allowed under the Rules. HELD: Bowles is SOL because the filing deadlines for the notice of appeal in civil cases are mandatory and jurisdictional. No apparent exceptions. The Court overruled precedent allowing for exceptions in "unique circumstances" and simply shrugged at the inequity here, saying that if Congress wishes to grant the Court the power to allow late filings then it should authorize such a power. This is a terrible day for justice and a particularly appalling whipsaw of Bowles, who was simply following the order of a federal district judge. Particularly chilling is an account in footnote 4, which details a letter sent by the Court clerk to a lawyer who had filed a certiorari petition one day late on behalf of his death row client who was scheduled to be executed(!) The conservative 5-4 majority on the Court is definitely making things difficult for the individual.
|
|
|
United States v. Tapp,
No. 05-30222 (5th Cir., June 28, 2007): 1) Filing Deadlines; 2) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Tapp, a federal prisoner, filed a 2255 habeas petition alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file timely a notice of appeal. The kicker here is that Tapp waived his right to appeal. In this case, the Fifth Circuit joined other circuits (including the Tenth Circuit) in holding that Supreme Court precedent still allows an IAC claim on this issue because if the prisoner can show by a preponderance of the evidence that he requested an appeal, prejudice will be presumed and the petitioner will be entitled to file an out-of-time appeal.
|
|
|
United States v. Poindexter,
No. 05-7635 (4th Cir., June 28, 2007): 1) Filing Deadlines; 2) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Oddly enough, it appears the Fourth Circuit decided the same issue on the same day as the Fifth Circuit in the Tapp case above: "We hold that an attorney renders constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel if he fails to follow his client's unequivocal instruction to file a timely notice of appeal even though the defendant may have waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence in the plea agreement."
|
|
|
|
