Michael Rogers v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7734
11th Cir.2017Background
- Michael Rogers was convicted of sexual battery on a minor; conviction became final May 12, 2010, with a life sentence.
- Rogers filed a Rule 3.800(c) motion to reduce his sentence on June 23, 2010; denial became final August 9, 2011.
- Rogers later filed a Rule 3.850 motion (jurisdictional challenge); its denial became final August 5, 2013.
- Rogers filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 31, 2014; the Secretary moved to dismiss as time-barred under § 2244(d)(1) because the limitations period allegedly expired July 27, 2011.
- Parties agreed Rule 3.850 tolled AEDPA’s one-year period; dispute centered on whether the Rule 3.800(c) motion tolled the limitations period.
- District court dismissed the petition; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and addressed whether Rule 3.800(c) motions constitute state "collateral review" under § 2244(d)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Florida Rule 3.800(c) motion tolls AEDPA's one-year limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) | Rogers: 3.800(c) is an application for collateral review and thus tolls the AEDPA clock | Secretary: 3.800(c) is a leniency request, not an attack on legality; therefore it does not toll | The court held 3.800(c) motions are "collateral review" and do toll the limitations period |
| Whether prior Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring an attack on legality controls | Rogers: Supreme Court's Wall v. Kholi definition abrogates contrary circuit precedent | Secretary: Relies on Alexander v. Sec., Dep’t of Corrs., which treated reduction motions as non-tolling | Court: Kholi overruled/abrogated Alexander; Alexander is not controlling |
| Whether textual or procedural differences between Florida Rule 3.800(c) and Rhode Island Rule 35(a) preclude Kholi's application | Rogers: Kholi's definition of collateral review and tolling purposes apply regardless of rule differences | Secretary: Differences (no appeal, different subsections, no legal standard) mean Kholi doesn't apply | Court: Differences are immaterial; Kholi governs and 3.800(c) tolls |
| Whether tolling 3.800(c) would unduly extend exposure to federal habeas claims | Rogers: Rule’s 60-day filing limit prevents indefinite tolling | Secretary: Allowing tolling would prolong federal exposure and permit gamesmanship | Court: Practical limits of Rule 3.800(c) (60 days) undercut Secretary’s concern; tolling allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545 (2011) (defines "collateral review" as judicial reexamination outside direct review and holds motions to reduce sentence toll AEDPA)
- Alexander v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 523 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2008) (previous Eleventh Circuit decision treating sentence-reduction requests as non-tolling; abrogated by Kholi)
- Cole v. Warden, Georgia State Prison, 768 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2014) (federal habeas timeliness dismissals reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (describing when prior panel precedent is not binding if abrogated by Supreme Court)
Result: Reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded; held that a Florida Rule 3.800(c) motion tolls AEDPA’s one-year limitations period.