Crosley Alexander Green v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
877 F.3d 1244
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Crosley Green was convicted in Florida (1990) of felony murder and other crimes; death sentence later vacated and resentenced to life in 2009; resentencing mandate issued March 1, 2013 after state postconviction proceedings concluded.
- Green filed a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion on September 27, 2010, and a replacing amended motion on January 7, 2011; both initial filings used an oath containing the qualifier “to the best of my knowledge.”
- The state trial court struck the January 7, 2011 motion for an improper oath and gave Green leave to amend; Green filed a corrected Rule 3.850 motion with a proper oath on February 4, 2011, which the state courts later denied on the merits.
- Green filed his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on February 27, 2014. The district court dismissed it as untimely under AEDPA, concluding the defective oath filings were not “properly filed” and therefore did not toll § 2244(d)(2).
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo whether the corrected Rule 3.850 motion relates back to the original filing date under Florida law and whether that relation-back tolls AEDPA’s one-year limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a corrected Rule 3.850 motion that cures an oath defect relates back to the original filing date under Florida law and therefore tolls AEDPA under § 2244(d)(2) | Green: Florida law treats an amended motion filed after a court strikes the original with leave to amend as relating back to the original filing date, so the corrected motion (filed 2/4/2011) should be deemed filed as of 9/27/2010 and toll AEDPA until 3/1/2013 | State: Under Eleventh Circuit precedent (Hurley), a motion lacking the required oath is not properly filed and cannot toll AEDPA; the defective filing therefore should not toll the limitations period | Held: The corrected motion relates back under Florida law to 9/27/2010; AEDPA tolled from that date until conclusion on 3/1/2013, making Green’s § 2254 petition timely |
| Whether Hurley controls when a corrected filing has been made within AEDPA’s limitations period | Green: Hurley involved an uncorrected oath; it does not address a timely-corrected pleading that relates back under state law | State: Hurley precludes tolling for filings with oath defects | Held: Hurley does not control because Hurley lacked a later corrected filing; distinction is dispositive here |
| Whether federal courts must defer to state courts’ characterization of relation-back for tolling purposes under § 2244(d)(2) | Green: Federal tolling analysis should follow state law on the timeliness and relation-back of state postconviction filings | State: Argues controlling federal precedent should limit tolling despite state relation-back rules | Held: Federal courts must respect state courts’ rules about relation-back; Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent require deference to state filing rules for tolling determinations |
| Whether equitable tolling or actual innocence needed to be resolved given statutory-tolling disposition | Green: Also argued equitable tolling and actual innocence as alternatives | State: Opposed | Held: Court reversed on statutory tolling grounds and did not reach equitable tolling or actual-innocence claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (state filing is "properly filed" when delivery and acceptance comply with applicable laws and rules)
- Hurley v. Moore, 233 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2000) (a Rule 3.850 motion lacking the required oath is not properly filed for AEDPA tolling)
- Melson v. Allen, 548 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 2008) (correcting state petition after AEDPA deadline does not revive expired limitations period)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (tolling provision protects state interests; state filing rules inform tolling analysis)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (actual innocence can excuse AEDPA time bar; invoked by petitioner but not decided here)
- Sibley v. Culliver, 377 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2004) (once AEDPA deadline expires, later state filings generally cannot revive it)
- Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2000) (state law governs whether a state postconviction filing is properly filed for tolling)
- Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2000) (state postconviction proceedings remain pending until the appellate mandate issues)
- Ferreira v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 494 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2007) (AEDPA limitation begins when both conviction and sentence are final)