Charles J. Eato v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 713 F. App'x 860

Charles Eato pleaded guilty (Alford plea) on July 12, 2010 in Florida case no. 2288 to multiple charges and was sentenced to 7 years on each count concurrent, but was credited with ~7.4 years (2,727 days) time served.
Because credit for time served exceeded the imposed sentence, the sentence in case no. 2288 was effectively expired at sentencing.
Eato pursued state postconviction relief (motions and state habeas) through 2014; those efforts were denied.
On July 29, 2014, Eato filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the convictions in case no. 2288.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal: Eato was not “in custody” under the challenged judgment, the petition was time-barred, and he failed to show equitable tolling or newly discovered evidence of actual innocence.
The district court adopted the R&R and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Eato appealed.

Issue	Eato's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 2254’s "in custody" requirement is met for a judgment whose sentence has expired	Eato contended he could proceed despite purported continued incarceration and argued actual innocence excused timeliness	State argued sentence in case no. 2288 had expired at sentencing, so § 2254 jurisdiction lacking	The court held Eato was not “in custody” under the challenged judgment; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether actual innocence and related equitable doctrines permit relief or tolling	Eato argued actual innocence (gateway claim) and sought to excuse untimeliness	State argued evidence was not newly discovered and Eato abandoned any enhancement-based custody argument on appeal	The court held Eato failed to establish newly discovered evidence of actual innocence and abandoned enhancement argument; no relief granted

Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (Sup. Ct.) (a petitioner must be in custody under the conviction attacked when filing habeas; expired sentences typically do not satisfy requirement)
Lackawanna Cty. Dist. Att’y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (Sup. Ct.) (a challenge to a prior conviction may be cognizable if it is shown to have enhanced a current sentence)
Rozzelle v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 672 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for § 2254 dismissals)
Stacey v. Warden, Apalachee Corr. Inst., 854 F.2d 401 (11th Cir.) (satisfaction of "in custody" bears on subject-matter jurisdiction)
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir.) (issues not raised on appeal are abandoned)
Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782 (11th Cir.) (certificate of appealability in post-conviction appeals)
Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir.) (COA not required to appeal dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)