On October 13, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Holland v. Florida, a case rais­ing the ques­tion of ​“whether ​‘gross neg­li­gence’ by a state-appoint­ed defense attor­ney in a death penal­ty case pro­vides a basis for extend­ing the time to file a fed­er­al habeas chal­lenge, in a case where the habeas plea was filed late despite repeat­ed instruc­tions from the client.” (sco​tus​blog​.com). In his peti­tion for cer­tio­rari to the Court, the defen­dant stat­ed, ​“Despite the State of Florida’s promise to Petitioner that he have coun­sel to com­pe­tent­ly and effec­tive­ly rep­re­sent him in both his state and fed­er­al post­con­vic­tion lit­i­ga­tion, a promise that would be pur­port­ed­ly enforced by judi­cial mon­i­tor­ing, Petitioner’s state col­lat­er­al attor­ney, Mr. Collins, failed to time­ly file a (habeas cor­pus) §2254 peti­tion on behalf of Petitioner.” The defen­dant then filed his own peti­tion for habeas cor­pus and, while admit­ting it was filed late, asked that the dead­line be extend­ed because of the seri­ous error by his appointed attorney.

(See Scotusblog, Albert Holland v. State of Florida, No. 09 – 5327, Oct. 13, 2009; Petition for Writ of Cert. to 11th Cir., May 13, 2009, at 8 – 10)). On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argu­ments in an Ohio case, Smith v. Spisak. See oth­er Supreme Court news or read about Supreme Court deci­sions in 2009; see also Representation.

Citation Guide