## Facts

- Matthew J. Mees, a Missouri prisoner with a history of mental illness, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from convictions for three counts of first-degree child molestation.
- Mees was a juvenile when charged; the case began in juvenile/family court and was later transferred to adult criminal court.
- In 2006, Mees admitted guilt and pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree child molestation.
- The state court imposed three concurrent 15-year sentences, but after Mees served an initial 120 days of incarceration, the court released him to five years of probation.
- At the guilty-plea hearing and again at sentencing, Mees indicated on the record that counsel had done what Mees asked, that he was satisfied with counsel’s performance, and that his plea was voluntary.
- The judge offered Mees an opportunity to speak privately if he had concerns he did not want to express in open court; Mees declined.
- In 2008, the state court revoked Mees’s probation and ordered execution of the 15-year prison sentences; Mees did not file an appeal or timely post-conviction motion.
- Years later, Mees filed state habeas petitions in 2012 (Missouri circuit court) and 2013 (Missouri court of appeals); both were denied.
- In 2013, Mees filed this federal § 2254 petition well outside AEDPA’s one-year limitations period and argued the limitations period should be equitably tolled because of his mental illness.
- During federal proceedings, the court appointed counsel, expanded the record, and held an evidentiary hearing focused on whether equitable tolling applied; at that hearing, Mees also pressed claims that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a mental-health assessment and for allegedly coercing Mees into pleading guilty (including an allegation that counsel told him how to complete the plea form).
- Mees relied in part on information from his mother, who told counsel about Mees’s mental-health history, to support his claim that counsel should have pursued an evaluation before advising a plea.

## Issues

1. Whether AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations barred Mees’s federal § 2254 petition and, if so, whether equitable tolling applied based on Mees’s mental illness and related circumstances.
2. If the petition were considered timely, whether Mees could show constitutionally ineffective assistance of plea counsel—particularly for failing to pursue a mental-health assessment and for alleged coercion—sufficient to undermine the voluntariness of his guilty plea.

## Decision

- The court dismissed Mees’s § 2254 petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
- The court denied equitable tolling because Mees did not carry his burden to show both (a) reasonable diligence in pursuing his rights and (b) an extraordinary circumstance that actually prevented timely filing.
- Although Mees had a documented history of mental illness, the court found the evidence did not show his condition was so severe during the limitations period that it rendered him unable to understand the need to file or unable to file a timely petition.
- The court noted that Mees’s later ability to pursue relief and file pleadings (including pro se filings in state court) weighed against a claim that his mental condition prevented legal action for years.
- The court also found Mees’s long gaps without pursuing relief were inconsistent with the diligence required for equitable tolling.
- In addressing Mees’s plea-related allegations in the tolling record, the court relied on the contemporaneous plea and sentencing transcripts—where Mees affirmed satisfaction with counsel and voluntariness—and treated those sworn statements as strongly reliable when compared with later contrary testimony.
- The district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and entered judgment denying habeas relief.

## Legal Principles

- A state prisoner must file a federal habeas petition within one year of the date the state judgment becomes final, subject to limited statutory tolling for properly filed state post-conviction or collateral review proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), (d)(2).
- Equitable tolling is available only in rare cases where the petitioner shows (1) reasonable diligence and (2) that an extraordinary circumstance stood in the way and prevented timely filing. *Holland v. Florida*.
- Mental illness may justify equitable tolling only when it is shown, with evidence tied to the relevant period, that the impairment actually prevented timely filing despite the petitioner’s diligent efforts.
- Delay and extended inactivity can defeat equitable tolling because diligence requires more than waiting years to pursue collateral relief.
- Ineffective-assistance claims are governed by *Strickland v. Washington*; in the guilty-plea setting, the prejudice inquiry generally asks whether there is a reasonable probability the defendant would have insisted on going to trial absent counsel’s errors. *Hill v. Lockhart*.
- A defendant’s sworn statements at a plea hearing carry substantial weight and generally defeat later claims of coercion or misunderstanding unless supported by strong contrary proof.

## Conclusion

Mees’s federal habeas petition was filed years after AEDPA’s one-year deadline, and the court concluded equitable tolling was unavailable because Mees did not prove that his mental illness actually prevented timely filing or that he pursued his rights with reasonable diligence; the contemporaneous plea and sentencing record further weakened his later claims about counsel and the voluntariness of the plea, so the petition was dismissed as untimely.


Mees v. Hurley, 2016 WL 3166844 (2016)