Duncan v. William Bolin

Background

Carlos Kendall Duncan was convicted in Minnesota state court in August 2017 of two counts of attempted second-degree murder and received consecutive prison terms of 214 months and 153 months. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review on May 28, 2019.

Duncan later pursued state post-conviction relief. He first filed without a lawyer in October 2019, and the state court allowed him to withdraw that petition in September 2020 after a central trial witness recanted testimony. Represented by counsel, Duncan filed a new state post-conviction petition in August 2021. The state courts denied relief, with the Minnesota Supreme Court denying further review on October 25, 2023. Duncan filed this federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 22, 2023.

The petition raised two claims: ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsel, and false testimony by the trial witness. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice. Duncan objected, so Judge Provinzino reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation in full and reviewed the unchallenged portions for clear error.

Timeliness ruling

Federal law generally gives a person seeking federal review of a state-court conviction one year to file a habeas petition. The filing period is paused while a properly filed state post-conviction petition is pending.

For Duncan’s ineffective-assistance claim, the court held that the one-year period began when his direct review ended because he knew the facts underlying that claim by then. Duncan agreed that the claim was untimely, although he and the respondent disagreed with one part of the recommendation’s calculation. The court found that the calculation error did not affect the result.

For the false-testimony claim, the court applied the rule under which the filing period begins when the factual basis of the claim could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The court held that Duncan knew the key facts about the witness’s recantation before September 21, 2020. It rejected Duncan’s argument that the period began on July 9, 2021, when he received a signed affidavit. The court explained that knowing the facts supporting a claim is different from collecting evidence in an admissible form to prove it. After accounting for pauses during Duncan’s state post-conviction proceedings, the court concluded that 380 days had run before he filed the federal petition, exceeding the one-year limit.

Equitable tolling and actual innocence

The court considered equitable tolling, a limited rule that can extend a filing deadline when a petitioner pursued rights diligently and extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing. Duncan argued that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented in-person meetings with his attorney and witnesses. The court found that he did not explain specifically how those difficulties prevented him from filing the federal petition, particularly because he could communicate with his attorney by telephone.

The court also considered Duncan’s actual-innocence argument. It found that testimony from Duncan’s romantic partner and the owner of the vehicle involved in the crime was not new evidence because Duncan did not explain why it could not have been presented at trial. The court further found that the recantation did not meet the demanding standard for excusing an untimely petition. The state court had found the witness’s recantation not credible, and the federal court stated that the recantation would not make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted Duncan.

Disposition

Judge Laura M. Provinzino overruled Duncan’s objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and dismissed the petition without prejudice. The court ordered that a certificate of appealability shall not issue because Duncan did not present a debatable basis for excusing the untimely filing.