Steven Eugene Turner v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Case: 16-16691 Date Filed: 04/26/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16691
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cv-00043-MW-CJK
STEVEN EUGENE TURNER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(April 26, 2018)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-16691 Date Filed: 04/26/2018 Page: 2 of 4
Steven Eugene Turner, a Florida prisoner represented by counsel, appeals
the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as
untimely. He argues that, pursuant to Rogers v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 855 F.3d
1274 (11th Cir. 2017), the district erred in finding that his Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c)
motion to reduce his sentence did not toll his one-year limitations period under the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”).
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a § 2254 petition as time-
barred under the AEDPA. Moore v. Crosby, 321 F.3d 1377, 1379 (11th Cir.
2003). The district court’s interpretation and application of the AEDPA limitations
period is a question of law that we also review de novo. Hepburn v. Moore, 215
F.3d 1208, 1209 (11th Cir. 2000).
The AEDPA imposes a one-year limitations period on all habeas corpus
petitions that runs from the latest of, among other things, “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). Further, the AEDPA
provides that any time during which the applicant’s properly filed application for
state post-conviction or collateral review is pending shall not be counted toward
any limitations period. § 2244(d)(2).
Florida law provides that the state appellate court’s per curiam decisions
without opinion are not reviewable by the Florida Supreme Court. Jackson v.
2
Case: 16-16691 Date Filed: 04/26/2018 Page: 3 of 4
State, 926 So. 2d 1262, 1265-66 (Fla. 2006). Thus, in such a case, a state
prisoner’s conviction becomes final when the U.S. Supreme Court denies
certiorari or when the 90 day period to file a certiorari petition expires. Chavers
v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 468 F.3d 1273, 1274-75 (11th Cir. 2006). The 90-
day period for seeking certiorari review of a conviction runs from the date of entry
of the judgment sought to be reviewed, not from the issuance of the mandate. Id.
at 1275.
An application for state post-conviction relief remains pending until the
state’s highest court has issued its mandate or denied review. Lawrence v. Florida,
549 U.S. 327, 332 (2007). In Florida, Rule 3.800(c) permits a state court to reduce
or modify a legal sentence imposed by it, either sua sponte or upon motion. Fla. R.
Crim. P. 3.800(c). A Florida prisoner may also file a motion for post-conviction
relief under Rule 3.850 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Fla. R. Crim.
P. 3.850.
In Rogers, we held that a Rule 3.800(c) motion was an application for
collateral review that tolls the limitations period for a federal habeas petition.
Rogers, 855 F.3d at 1277. Specifically, we reasoned that a Rule 3.800(c) motion
allowed a prisoner to move for a reduction or modification of a legal sentence,
which was “outside of the direct review process.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
3
Case: 16-16691 Date Filed: 04/26/2018 Page: 4 of 4
Ultimately, we noted that a Florida court’s resolution of a Rule 3.800(c) motion
may eliminate a prisoner’s need to seek federal habeas relief. Id.
The parties agree that the dispositive issue in this case is whether a motion
made under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is a tolling motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Pursuant to the controlling authority of our recent decision
in Rogers, we hold that is.
In accordance with our precedent in Rogers, which was decided after the
district court’s decision but before briefing in Turner’s appeal, the district court
erred when it determined that Turner’s Rule 3.800(c) motion to reduce his sentence
was not an application for collateral review that would toll his one-year limitations
period. As the parties concede, Turner’s § 2254 petition was timely after
accounting for the time that the limitations period was tolled while his Rule
3.800(c) motion was pending.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
4