Herschel Gerald Byrd v. Warden Riverbend CF , 648 F. App'x 881 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-10499 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10499
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-03316-TWT
HERSCHEL GERALD BYRD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN RIVERBEND CF,
COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 21, 2016)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Herschel Byrd, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely and for failure to
Case: 15-10499 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Page: 2 of 5
exhaust his state remedies. We granted a certificate of appealability on the
following issues:
(1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that Byrd’s 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition was barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations, in light of the evidence that
the state amended Byrd’s sentence in June 2010; and
(2) If so, whether the district court also erred in its alternative order, in
which it sua sponte dismissed Byrd’s § 2254 petition, effectively with
prejudice, based on his failure to exhaust his state court remedies prior to
requiring a response from the state.
After thorough review, we affirm the dismissal of Byrd’s petition as untimely. 1
We review de novo the dismissal of a federal habeas petition as time-barred
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Cole v. Warden, Ga. State Prison, 768 F.3d 1150,
1155 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1905 (2015). We are not bound to
accept a respondent’s concession on appeal. Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d
1293, 1306 n.14 (11th Cir. 2011).
The AEDPA establishes a one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas
petitions filed by state prisoners, which runs from “the date on which the judgment
became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The AEDPA’s statute of
1
In addition, Byrd’s motion to supplement the record is hereby GRANTED IN PART as to
the documents attached to his motion, namely, the Supreme Court of Georgia’s order dismissing
his first state habeas petition, the state court’s June 2, 2010 final disposition order, and the state’s
answer and motion to dismiss his second state habeas petition, and DENIED IN PART as to the
remaining documents referenced in his motion. The state’s motion to supplement the record is
hereby GRANTED.
2
Case: 15-10499 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Page: 3 of 5
limitations begins to run when the judgment under which the petitioner is in
custody, consisting of both the petitioner’s conviction and sentence, is final.
Ferreira v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 494 F.3d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007). Thus,
when a petitioner is resentenced after the imposition of his original conviction and
sentence, the AEDPA’s statute of limitations runs from the date on which the
newly imposed sentence becomes final. See id. at 1292-93. In Ferreira, the
petitioner was originally convicted and sentenced in 1997, but was resentenced in
2003 after succeeding on a state post-conviction motion. Id. at 1288. We
determined that Ferreira’s judgment became final when he was resentenced in
2003 and that his § 2254 petition, filed shortly after his new sentence became final,
thus was timely. Id. at 1292-93.
Under Georgia law, a sentencing court retains the inherent power to, at any
time, correct clerical errors in a written sentence to reflect the court’s intent at the
time the sentence was imposed. Griggs v. State, 723 S.E.2d 480, 481 (Ga. Ct.
App. 2012). This type of correction does not constitute a modification of the
sentence, because it simply perfects the record. Taylor v. State, 276 S.E.2d 691,
692 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).
Here, the district court did not err dismissing Byrd’s § 2254 petition as
untimely. As the record shows, Byrd’s judgment became final for purposes of the
AEDPA’s one-year limitations period in 2007, the limitations period expired in
3
Case: 15-10499 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Page: 4 of 5
2008, and he did not file his first state habeas petition until 2010. Thus, the one-
year limitations period expired in 2008 before Byrd filed any motion that could toll
the limitations period.
Moreover, the June 2, 2010 order amending his sentence was merely the
correction of a clerical error in the original order that did not reset the limitations
period. Indeed, the 2010 state court order lists “Amended Sentence,” “Modified
Sentence,” and “Re-Sentencing” as distinct options. It has the box for “Amended
Sentence” checked and notes “previous sentence written as concurrent.” The
marking of the box for an amended sentence instead of a modified sentence or
resentencing and the reference to the way in which the original sentence was
written -- rather than what was imposed -- both show that the sentence amendment
was akin to the correction of a clerical error to reflect the court’s original intent
that related back to the original sentence.
Byrd’s filings further suggest that the June 2010 amendment merely
corrected a clerical error. In his § 2254 petition and response to the magistrate
judge’s order to show cause, Byrd said that he was sentenced to 25 years’
imprisonment on October 15, 2007. Further, the “Sentence Computation Report”
Byrd submitted with his response to the magistrate judge’s order to show cause
indicated that he was sentenced to consecutive 20 and 5 year sentences on October
15, 2007. If Byrd’s October 15, 2007 sentence was 25 years’ imprisonment, then
4
Case: 15-10499 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Page: 5 of 5
the June 2, 2010 order amending his sentence to be consecutive 20- and 5-year
sentences was not a substantive modification akin to a resentencing. See Ferreira,
494 F.3d at 1292-93.
Accordingly Byrd’s § 2254 petition was untimely filed in October 2014.
Because the district court did not err in dismissing Byrd’s petition as untimely, it is
unnecessary for us to reach the issue of whether his claims also were unexhausted.
AFFIRMED.
5