Abstract
When Albert Holland’s capital post-conviction counsel filed his state post-conviction motion in September 2002, twelve days remained in the one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition. While Holland might not have known exactly how much time was left in the federal limitations period, he knew he wanted to preserve his right to federal review, that the limitations period was tolled during non-discretionary state post-conviction review, and that he would be under the gun to get the federal petition filed once the Florida Supreme Court issued its decisions. And he made no ones about his desire to file a timely federal petition, sending his attorney several letters to that effect, and even sending accurate legal citations. Reading those letters (and several others he wrote in an attempt to get information on his case), one can sense Holland’s mounting fear that he might actually miss the federal filing deadline and, along with it, the opportunity for federal review of his constitutional claims.
First Page
485
Recommended Citation
Celestine R. McConville,
Yikes! Was I Wrong? A Second Look at the Viability of Monitoring Capital Post-Conviction Counsel,
64
Me. L. Rev.
485
(2012).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol64/iss2/7
Included in
Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons