Kearse v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22462
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kearse, Florida death-row inmate, filed federal habeas petition on July 16, 2009 challenging his conviction and death sentence.
- District court dismissed petition as untimely under AEDPA's one-year limit 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
- AEDPA tolling applies while a state-postconviction relief application is properly filed under § 2244(d)(2).
- State court initially dismissed Kearse's 2001 Rule 3.851 postconviction motion as noncompliant, later clarified due to lack of an attached oath.
- Time-stamped copies show the initial motion and verification were received by the state court on October 3, 2001 at 9:53 a.m.
- On appeal, court held the district court erred by applying § 2254(d) (facts/adjudication standard) to timeliness, and must consider clear and convincing evidence under § 2254(e)(1) to rebut factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for timeliness review | Kearse's timeliness hinges on § 2244(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1) evidence. | District court applied § 2254(d) to timeliness, not addressing factual evidence properly. | District court error; timeliness evaluated under § 2254(e)(1) evidence. |
| Effect of attached verification on initial motion filing | Verification page was effectively attached; supports timely filing. | State court found no attached oath conforming to Rule 3.851, making the filing improper. | Remand to determine if clear and convincing evidence rebuts the factual finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fahy v. Horn, 516 F.3d 169 (3d Cir.2008) (non-§ 2254(d) factual-review limits timing analysis)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (definition of 'claim' and federal-review scope under AEDPA)
- Cramer v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 461 F.3d 1380 (11th Cir.2006) (timeliness review is de novo)