968 F.3d 1261
11th Cir.2020Background:
- In 2003 Osbourne was convicted of robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery; sentenced to life and a concurrent 15-year term, each sentence including a 10-year mandatory-minimum firearm enhancement.
- Osbourne’s first federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was filed in 2010 and denied on the merits.
- In May 2014 Osbourne filed a Florida Rule 3.800(a) motion arguing the charging information did not allege actual possession, rendering the 10-year enhancement illegal; the trial court granted relief in part and ordered an “amended sentence” deleting the 10-year mandatory minimum on the robbery count, expressly entered nunc pro tunc to April 21, 2003.
- The Florida appellate court summarily affirmed the partial denial of the Rule 3.800 motion.
- In July 2016 Osbourne filed a new pro se § 2254 petition, arguing ineffective assistance and due-process challenges to the remaining enhancement; he contended the 2014 action produced a new judgment so the petition was not successive.
- The magistrate and district court dismissed the 2016 petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the nunc pro tunc amendment related back to the 2003 judgment and did not create a new judgment for § 2244(b) purposes.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2014 amended sentence (entered nunc pro tunc) is a “new judgment” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) so that a subsequent § 2254 petition is not second or successive | Osbourne: 2014 resentencing produced a new judgment, so his 2016 § 2254 is not successive | State: 2014 was a nunc pro tunc clerical correction that related back to the 2003 judgment; not a new judgment; petition is successive | Court: The amendment was nunc pro tunc and relates back to the 2003 judgment; it is not a new judgment and the 2016 petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition (dismissal affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (an intervening new judgment can permit a later habeas petition that would otherwise be successive)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (the relevant inquiry for successive petitions is the judgment being challenged)
- Insignares v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 755 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2014) (a corrected sentence that produced a new judgment allowed a new § 2254 petition)
- Patterson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 849 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (not all sentence alterations create a new judgment; the judgment authorizing confinement is the controlling judgment)
- Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (district courts lack jurisdiction to hear unauthorized successive habeas petitions)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (federal courts should defer to state courts on state-law matters and apply comity)