Scott v. Florida Department of Corrections , 307 F. App'x 347 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________                  FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 08-10471                ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    JANUARY 13, 2009
    Non-Argument Calendar
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    ________________________
    CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 07-23034-CV-FAM
    VRAIN SCOTT,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Walter A. McNeil, Secretary,
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    _________________________
    (January 13, 2009)
    Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Vrain Scott appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    . The district court concluded that the petition was untimely and
    successive to a petition denied on the merits in 2000, and we granted a certificate
    of appealability to address that ruling. Because Scott’s petition challenges his
    conviction and sentence entered in 2004, his petition is neither successive nor
    untimely. We vacate the order that dismissed Scott’s petition and remand for
    further proceedings.
    I. BACKGROUND
    Scott was convicted of armed robbery in 1995 in a Florida court, and a state
    appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence. See Scott v. State, ___ So. 2d
    ___, No. 3D08-1407 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2008). Scott later filed in a
    Florida court a motion for postconviction relief that alleged ineffective assistance
    of counsel. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. The trial court denied the motion, and
    Scott did not appeal. Scott filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
    2000 and again alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court
    denied the petition, and we denied Scott’s request for a certificate of appealability.
    In 2003, Scott filed a motion for postconviction relief in a Florida court. He
    argued that the robbery statute under which he was convicted violated the state
    constitution and his conviction and sentence did not conform to the jury’s verdict.
    2
    The trial court granted the motion. The court adjudicated Scott guilty of robbery
    with a weapon and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Scott appealed, but his
    appellate counsel found no reversible error in the record and filed a brief and
    motion to withdraw in compliance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
     (1967). The state appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence in
    July 2005 and later denied Scott’s motion for rehearing. Scott v. State, 
    911 So. 2d 1249
     (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005). Scott challenged the judgment in a petition for a
    writ of habeas corpus, which an appellate court denied in December 2005. Scott v.
    State, 
    922 So. 2d 215
     (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005).
    Scott filed another motion for postconviction relief in a Florida court in
    January 2006. Scott argued that his conviction and sentence for robbery with a
    weapon entered in 2004 violated his right to a jury trial under the Sixth
    Amendment, see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
     (2000),
    and his trial counsel failed to preserve that argument for appellate review. The trial
    court denied the motion, and an appellate court affirmed in July 2007. Scott v.
    State, 
    963 So. 2d 718
     (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007). Scott filed a motion for
    rehearing, which the appellate court denied.
    In October 2007, Scott filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus
    that challenged his conviction and sentence entered in 2004. Scott again argued
    3
    that his conviction was unconstitutional and his counsel was ineffective. The
    district court dismissed the petition as successive and untimely.
    II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    We review de novo the dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely and
    successive. See Moore v. Crosby, 
    321 F.3d 1377
    , 1379 (11th Cir. 2003); McIver
    v. United States, 
    307 F.3d 1327
    , 1329 (11th Cir. 2002).
    III. DISCUSSION
    Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a state
    prisoner may not file a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
    the district court unless the prisoner has obtained permission from the court of
    appeals. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (b)(3)(A). A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider
    a second habeas petition that has not been permitted by an appellate court. Hill v.
    Hopper, 
    112 F.3d 1088
    , 1089 (11th Cir. 1997). We have held that a second
    petition that raises issues about a resentencing is not successive if it “attacks the
    constitutionality of [the] re-sentencing proceeding only, and not the validity of [the
    earlier] conviction.” In re Green, 
    215 F.3d 1195
    , 1196 (11th Cir. 2000). The
    petition may be filed in the district court without obtaining permission from this
    Court. 
    Id.
    Scott’s petition is not successive because it challenges alleged errors in the
    4
    entry of his conviction and sentence in 2004, which occurred after Scott filed his
    first petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Scott was not required to obtain our
    permission to file this petition, and the Florida officials concede that his petition, if
    not successive, is timely.
    We VACATE the order that dismissed Scott’s petition for a writ of habeas
    corpus and REMAND for further proceedings.
    VACATED AND REMANDED.
    5