Capital case

Bradshaw v. Stumpf

 

John Stumpf and his accomplice, Clyde Wesley, were convicted of the murder of Mary Jane Stout. Stumpf, in his appeal to the Supreme Court, argues that the prosecutor unfairly used inconsistent theories to prove that both he and Wesley were guilty for the murder – -- even though a single shot was used to kill Stout. Stumpf thus claims his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution were violated. Stumpf also argues that his guilty plea at trial was entered unknowingly and involuntarily because he did not understand the elements of the crime. The Supreme Court, in making its decisions, will have to address the role of the prosecutor in a criminal proceeding, the rights of the defendant under the Due Process Clause, and the extent to which a defendant can later invalidate his earlier plea of guilty.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Submit for publication
0

Lawrence v. Florida

Issues

1. Does filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court for post-conviction relief toll the one-year statute of limitations for filing for a writ of habeas corpus?

2. Does the confusion resulting from a split of opinion among the U.S. Courts of Appeals create an extraordinary circumstance where equitable tolling should apply and allow Petitioner to file for a writ of habeas corpus even though the one-year limitation period has expired?

3. Are there extraordinary circumstances under which equitable tolling would apply and allow an extension of time for filing a habeas corpus petition when petitioner’s attorney was appointed by the state and failed to fulfill his duty to make sure that all of petitioner’s filings were made on time?

 

For a criminal defendant to appeal his conviction under a writ of habeas corpus, he must file a petition for relief with the district court within one year of the final resolution of state court appeal. An extension of this time is granted when there is an extraordinary circumstance justifying equitable tolling or if a statute authorizes it. Lawrence v. Florida asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a pending request for Supreme Court certiorari is 1) a statutory tolling event, 2) whether such a pending request for certiorari is an extraordinary event justifying equitable tolling, or 3) whether the delayed filing of a habeas petition by a state-assigned attorney is an extraordinary event justifying equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court 's decision in this case will determine the availability of important post-conviction relief to indigent defendants affected by inconveniencing circumstances beyond their control.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. There is a split in the circuits about whether the one-year period of limitations is tolled for "[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment of claim is pending . . . . " antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(d) (2). Where a defendant facing death has pending a United States Supreme Court certiorari petition to review the validity of the state's denial of his claims for state post-conviction relief, does the defendant have an application pending which tolls the 2244 (d)(2) statute of limitations?

2. Alternatively, does the confusion around the statute of limitations –as evidenced by the split in the circuits -constitute an "extraordinary circumstance," entitling the diligent defendant to equitable tolling during the time when his claim is being considered by the United States Supreme Court on certiorari?

3. And in the second alternative, do the special circumstance where counsel advising the defendant as to the statute of limitations was registry counsel - a species of state actor - under the monitoring supervision of Florida Courts, with a statutory duty to file appropriate motions in a timely manner, constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" beyond the defendant's control such that the doctrine of equitable tolling should operate to save his petition?

The Crime and State Proceedings

On July 28, 1994, Gary Lawrence, with assistance from his ex-wife Brenda, brutally murdered Brenda’s lover, Michael Finken. See Lawrence v. State, 698 So.2d 1219, 1220 (Fla.

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Capital case