Craven v. Robertson

Background

Kalvin N. Craven filed a federal petition asking the court to review his state conviction. The original petition raised three claims: that the trial court improperly admitted videos from his cell phone; that the trial court violated his constitutional rights through communications with jurors during deliberations and by failing to answer a jury question; and that trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the cell-phone videos.

The court had previously allowed those claims to proceed. Craven later sought to add ineffective-assistance-of-counsel and cumulative-error claims. On May 4, 2021, the court denied an earlier request to amend because the proposed claims had not yet been presented to the state courts. After Craven pursued those claims in state court, the court stayed and administratively closed the federal case so he could complete the state process.

Craven later filed an amended petition and then a proposed second amended petition. The second amended petition included five newly exhausted ineffective-assistance claims and a cumulative-error claim. The court treated Craven’s request to withdraw the earlier amended petition as a request for permission to file the second amended petition. Robertson opposed that request, arguing that the new claims were barred by the one-year federal habeas limitations period and did not relate back to the original petition.

Court’s analysis

The court first addressed the stay. Because Craven reported that he had completed his efforts to present the new claims in state court, the court granted his motions to lift the stay. The clerk was directed to reopen the administratively closed case.

The court then analyzed the timeliness of the newly exhausted claims under the federal one-year limitations period for state prisoners. It determined that the limitations period began running on April 28, 2020. The court gave effect to statutory tolling—the exclusion of time while properly filed state post-conviction proceedings are pending—for certain periods, but not for the 327-day gap between the state superior court’s June 3, 2020 denial and the filing of another state petition on April 27, 2021. The court concluded that the limitations period expired on June 14, 2021, and that the claims in the second amended petition, deemed filed on December 14, 2021, were untimely even after statutory tolling. The court also concluded that Craven had not shown a basis for equitable tolling.

The court next considered relation back. Under that doctrine, a later claim may be treated as filed on the date of an earlier pleading if it arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. The court concluded that the new ineffective-assistance and cumulative-error claims did not relate back to the three claims in the original petition because they did not share a common core of operative facts with those claims. The new ineffective-assistance claims concerned different alleged failures by trial counsel and different evidence from the original ineffective-assistance claim involving the cell-phone videos.

The court identified a separate unresolved issue. Craven’s earlier amended petition, deemed filed on June 6, 2021, was filed before the limitations period expired and raised claims similar to those in the second amended petition. The court stated that the parties had not briefed whether the appearance of those claims in the earlier timely amended petition could support relation back, or whether all or only some of the claims could relate back.

Disposition

The court granted Craven’s motions to lift the stay. The stay was lifted, and the case was reopened. Craven’s motion for leave to file the second amended petition remained pending. The court ordered Robertson to file supplemental briefing by March 18, 2022, or state that he would not file it and would instead request permission for Craven to file the second amended petition and propose a schedule for further briefing. If Robertson filed a supplement, Craven could respond within 28 days after receiving it. The order did not decide the merits of Craven’s habeas claims or finally decide whether the proposed new claims could be added.