Summary
denying petition on the merits
Summary of this case from Lambrix v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.Opinion
No. SC11–1138.
2013-05-14
Cary Michael LAMBRIX, Petitioner(s) v. Michael D. CREWS, etc., Respondent(s).
Cary Michael Lambrix, a prisoner under sentence of death, files a petition for writ of habeas corpus. This Court has jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(9), Florida Constitution.
In this pleading, Lambrix asserts that he is entitled to relief because the decision in Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010), announced a new rule of law entitled to retroactive application. We reject this argument. In Holland, the United States Supreme Court held only that equitable tolling could toll the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)—it did not address claims proceeding in state court. Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2554. Moreover, unlike Holland, this case does not involve a situation where counsel failed to timely file a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion for postconviction relief. Accordingly, we hereby deny his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits. Further, we deny the State's motion to dismiss and Lambrix's motion to consolidate this case with SC10–1845. POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.