White v. Stenseth

Background

William Demont White, Jr. challenged state-court convictions for second-degree intentional murder, first-degree assault, and arson. His petition included a claim under Brady v. Maryland, which concerns a prosecutor’s duty to disclose material information favorable to the accused. White alleged that the state failed to disclose that a witness who testified against him, Vance Laster, was on parole during the time of the offense and trial.

United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended dismissing the petition because it was untimely. The recommendation concluded that White’s Brady claim was governed by the one-year limitation period running from the date his conviction became final under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), rather than from the later date when White obtained a certified document showing Laster’s parole status. The recommendation also concluded that White’s other claims were time-barred.

Objections

White objected that the limitation period for his Brady claim should instead run from the date when the factual basis for the claim could have been discovered through reasonable diligence under § 2244(d)(1)(D). He argued that the period should begin when the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County provided the certified disposition showing Laster’s parole status.

The court rejected that objection. It relied on the conclusion that the jury already knew about Laster’s criminal convictions and favorable plea agreement, so his parole status would have added little impeachment value. The prosecution had disclosed Laster’s criminal history, including a 36-month sentence imposed in March 2016, to White’s counsel before the February 2018 trial. Because the trial occurred within 36 months of Laster’s conviction, the court concluded that Laster’s parole status was readily ascertainable without the certified disposition.

White also argued that equitable tolling—an extension of a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances—was justified by restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court rejected that argument because White did not explain why the restrictions were especially prohibitive for him or identify a specific hindrance that prevented him from obtaining the certified disposition for more than two years after the pandemic began.

Finally, White objected to the recommendation that no certificate of appealability issue. The court concluded that the petition was untimely and that reasonable minds could not differ on that conclusion.

Ruling

After conducting the required review, Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court granted Lisa Stenseth’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the petition with prejudice, and ordered that no certificate of appealability issue.