Harrelson v. Swan ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 08-41112     Document: 00511138317          Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/10/2010
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    June 10, 2010
    No. 08-41112
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    JANET HARRELSON,
    Petitioner-Appellant
    v.
    STEVE SWAN, Chief Probation Officer, Liberty-Chambers Counties Community
    Supervision & Corrections Department,
    Respondent-Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:07-CV-742
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Janet Harrelson, Texas prisoner # 02288819, filed a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    petition challenging her conviction of forgery and tampering with a
    governmental record. The district court denied Harrelson’s petition as untimely,
    and this court granted Harrelson a certificate of appealability (COA) limited to
    the issue whether the filing of nunc pro tunc proceedings constituted collateral
    proceedings that tolled the limitation period under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (d)(2). We
    now AFFIRM.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 08-41112   Document: 00511138317 Page: 2        Date Filed: 06/10/2010
    No. 08-41112
    Harrelson was convicted in 2003 and sentenced in two judgments to
    concurrent probated terms of incarceration. The conviction became final on
    December 9, 2005, when the time expired for her to seek certiorari in the United
    States Supreme Court from the denial of a petition for discretionary review by
    the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Roberts v. Cockrell, 
    319 F.3d 690
    , 693
    (5th Cir. 2003). In accord with Texas state law governing probated sentences,
    the terms of Harrelson’s community supervision commenced when the state
    court issued its mandate shortly thereafter. See Surety Corp. of Am. v. State,
    
    550 S.W.2d 689
    , 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). The State then sought entry of
    judgments nunc pro tunc to reflect that Harrelson’s sentence began upon the
    date of the mandate’s issuance, and the trial court granted the motion.
    Harrelson appealed, arguing that the nunc pro tunc judgments were void
    because they implied that she had violated her probation. On March 7, 2007, the
    state appellate court reversed because the nunc pro tunc judgments did not
    merely correct a clerical error and were improper.
    Harrelson filed her § 2254 petition challenging her conviction on October
    18, 2007, more than one year after her conviction became final on December 9,
    2005. The petition is untimely on its face unless the nunc pro tunc proceedings
    tolled the limitations period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
    Act (AEDPA).
    Harrelson argues that the nunc pro tunc judgments reopened her
    underlying conviction so that the conviction was not final until the state
    appellate court corrected the judgments. She relies on 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (d)(1)(A)
    and Jimenez v. Quarterman, 
    129 S. Ct. 681
     (2009). Jimenez held narrowly that
    “where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time
    direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the defendant has first
    sought federal habeas relief, his judgment is not yet ‘final’ for purposes of
    § 2244(d)(1)(A).” Id. at 686. This court’s grant of COA did not encompass the
    finality of Harrelson’s conviction under § 2244(d)(1)(A), but rather whether the
    2
    Case: 08-41112    Document: 00511138317 Page: 3         Date Filed: 06/10/2010
    No. 08-41112
    nunc pro tunc proceedings constituted collateral review under § 2244(d)(2), a
    very different statutory provision. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider
    Harrelson’s argument. See Carty v. Thaler, 
    583 F.3d 244
    , 266 (5th Cir. 2009).
    Under § 2244(d)(2), the AEDPA’s limitations period is tolled for “[t]he time
    during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other
    collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending[.]”
    Harrelson, who is represented by counsel, does not provide a clear explanation,
    with supporting authorities, of why the nunc pro tunc proceedings here meet the
    definition of an “other collateral proceeding” that tolls the limitations period. We
    may conclude, therefore, that Harrelson has inadequately briefed and abandoned
    the only issue for which a COA was granted. See F ED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(9);
    Hughes v. Johnson, 
    191 F.3d 607
    , 613 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Beasley v.
    McCotter, 
    798 F.2d 116
    , 118 (5th Cir. 1986) (noting that liberal construction is
    not afforded to parties who are represented by counsel before this court).
    Furthermore, even if we were to reach the issue we would conclude that
    the nunc pro tunc proceedings did not toll the limitations period and that
    Harrelson’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Harrelson argues that
    the state trial court entered “new” judgments in the nunc pro tunc proceedings
    that effectively tolled the limitations period until resolution of her appeal.
    Merely because the trial court entered a subsequent judgment, however, does
    not necessarily mean that the proceedings constituted collateral review of
    Harrelson’s original judgments of conviction.
    In order to toll the limitations period under § 2244(d)(2), the proceedings
    at issue must at least have sought “review” of the judgments pursuant to which
    Harrelson was in custody. See Moore v. Cain, 
    298 F.3d 361
    , 367 (5th Cir. 2002).
    “Review” means, inter alia, “to reexamine judicially’” and “to go over or examine
    critically or deliberately.” 
    Id.
     (quotation and citation omitted) (emphasis in
    original). In Texas, a nunc pro tunc entry of judgment is proper to correct
    clerical errors in the judgment in order to reflect the judgment as it was actually
    3
    Case: 08-41112    Document: 00511138317 Page: 4        Date Filed: 06/10/2010
    No. 08-41112
    ordered by the trial court at the time of trial but that for some reason was not
    entered properly. Ex Parte Poe, 
    751 S.W.2d 873
    , 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).
    The State sought the nunc pro tunc judgments here to effectuate the mandate
    after Harrelson’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Although Harrelson
    is correct that she was permitted to appeal from the trial court’s order, her right
    of appeal was “limited to the validity of the nunc pro tunc entry.” Moore v. State,
    
    446 S.W.2d 878
    , 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Consistent with that principle,
    Harrelson’s appeal sought a ruling that the nunc pro tunc judgments were
    erroneous because, rather than correcting a clerical error, they implied that she
    had violated her probation. The state appellate court held only that the nunc
    pro tunc judgments were “not the proper vehicles to effectuate this Court’s
    mandates.” Harrelson v. State, 
    2007 WL 685558
    , at *2 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).
    Harrelson did not seek, nor did the state appellate court supply, review of
    Harrelson’s original judgments. In fact, during the pendency of the nunc pro
    tunc proceedings, Harrelson had sought review of her original conviction and
    judgment in separate state habeas proceedings, which were ultimately
    unsuccessful.    The propriety of the original judgments through judicial
    reexamination had nothing to do with the nunc pro tunc proceedings and appeal,
    although the original judgments by necessity were germane to the case. See
    Moore, 
    298 F.3d at 367
    .      We conclude, therefore, that the nunc pro tunc
    proceedings did not constitute “other collateral review” of Harrelson’s conviction
    and did not toll the limitations period. See § 2244(d)(2).
    The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
    4