Steven H. Cook v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
686 F. App'x 766
11th Cir.2017Background
- Cook was convicted of first-degree murder (jury verdict June 6, 2008); Florida appellate mandate issued June 19, 2009.
- Federal one-year AEDPA limitations period began running from his conviction becoming final; district court calculated the deadline as September 17, 2010.
- Cook claims he delivered a Florida Rule 3.850 postconviction motion to prison officials on June 11, 2010; prison stamp on the motion shows receipt on that date.
- The Florida trial court’s file did not initially show the June 11, 2010 motion; Florida courts later denied several motions noting the June 11 filing was not in the record.
- Cook filed an April 8, 2011 state habeas petition and other motions; he filed his federal § 2254 petition on January 16, 2014.
- The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition as untimely, treating the April 8, 2011 filing as Cook’s first state collateral application; the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cook’s June 11, 2010 Rule 3.850 motion was properly filed for tolling AEDPA’s limitations period | Cook: he delivered the 3.850 motion to prison officials on June 11, 2010, so it is deemed filed under Florida’s mailbox rule | State: the June 11, 2010 motion is not in the state court record; thus not an earlier properly filed application | The Eleventh Circuit held the motion was in the record (included in the State’s appendix, stamped June 11, 2010) and complied with Rule 3.850(c); it should have been deemed filed on June 11, 2010 and toll AEDPA’s clock |
| Whether the district court erred in finding Cook’s April 8, 2011 petition was his first postconviction application | Cook: April 8, 2011 was not his first; June 11, 2010 motion preceded it | State: April 8, 2011 was first because the June 11 motion was not in the record | Held: District court clearly erred — June 11, 2010 motion existed in the record and preceded the April 8, 2011 filing |
| Whether the § 2254 petition was untimely under § 2244(d)(1) given tolling | Cook: timely if June 11, 2010 motion tolled the limitations period | State: untimely because no earlier tolling application existed before Sept. 17, 2010 | Held: because the June 11, 2010 motion tolled the period, the district court’s timeliness ruling was erroneous and must be reconsidered on remand |
| Whether other issues are before the Court beyond timeliness | Cook: sought relief on merits in district court | State: district court only addressed timeliness | Held: Eleventh Circuit limited review to timeliness; remanded for further consideration consistent with ruling (no other issues decided) |
Key Cases Cited
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (definition of "properly filed" for tolling)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992) (Florida mailbox rule for pro se inmates)
- Brown v. Sec’y for the Dep’t of Corr., 530 F.3d 1335 (Rule 3.850 motion tolls AEDPA)
- Spottsville v. Terry, 476 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of habeas dismissal as untimely)
- Johnson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 513 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2008) (factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2000) (issues not decided by district court are not properly before the court)
- Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1997) (Rule 3.850(c) requirements)