921 F.3d 983
11th Cir.2019Background
- Hall convicted in Florida state court (2010); state appellate court affirmed on March 28, 2012; did not seek certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. AEDPA limitations began to run thereafter.
- AEDPA one-year clock (absent tolling) would have expired June 26, 2013 (as computed by the panel for these facts).
- Hall filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion on April 11, 2013, which tolled AEDPA while pending; state mandate issued December 26, 2013, restarting the clock with 76 days remaining.
- Hall filed a Rule 3.850 motion on January 9, 2014 raising his federal claims, but it lacked the Rule 3.850(n)(2) English-translation certification and was dismissed without prejudice on February 14, 2014 with leave to amend; Hall timely refiled a corrected Rule 3.850 on February 24, 2014.
- The corrected Rule 3.850 was denied on the merits and the state appellate mandate issued December 4, 2014; Hall filed his § 2254 on January 13, 2015. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely; Hall appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that Hall’s initial defective Rule 3.850 tolled AEDPA under Florida’s practice (Spera/Nelson/Bryant) because the corrected filing relates back, so Hall’s § 2254 was timely; court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hall) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hall’s initial, defectively sworn Rule 3.850 was a "properly filed" application that tolled AEDPA | The deficient motion tolled AEDPA because Florida law allows dismissal-with-leave-to-amend and the corrected motion relates back to the original filing (Green) | The initial filing was not "properly filed" under § 2244(d)(2) because it lacked the required certification; only the corrected motion tolled | Court: Although the initial motion was deficient, Florida law treats a dismissal-with-leave-to-amend as preserving the filing date; the corrected motion relates back, so tolling applies from the original filing date (Hall wins) |
| Whether the period between dismissal of the defective motion and filing the corrected motion left Hall without tolling such that his § 2254 was untimely | Hall: Even if a short gap were untreated as "pending," the gap was only 10 days and his § 2254 remained timely; but under Spera/Nelson the collateral process remains "in continuance" until final denial | State: Once a motion is dismissed it is not "pending" and there was an interval with no tolling; only the corrected motion was pending | Court: Florida practice (Spera/Nelson/Bryant) means the collateral process remains in continuance until final denial; tolling applied across the proceedings and Hall’s federal petition was timely |
| Proper AEDPA finality computation for Florida cases (concurring point) | Hall did not press this; concurrence notes that if a petitioner does not seek state supreme court review, the 90-day Bond extension may not apply | State used a 90-day extension in computing finality; concurrence argues that 30 days (Florida rule to seek review in state supreme court) controls when petitioner did not seek state high-court review | Concurrence: Questions blanket application of Bond; where a petitioner does not seek Florida Supreme Court review, finality may occur 30 days after the district court of appeal decision rather than 90 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Secretary, Dep’t of Corr., 877 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2017) (corrected Rule 3.850 relates back to defective filing; tolling applies)
- Hurley v. Moore, 233 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2000) (deficient Rule 3.850 missing oath was not "properly filed")
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006) (state postconviction application is "pending" during the appeal period between lower court decision and filing timely notice of appeal)
- Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545 (2011) (definition of "collateral review" under § 2244(d)(2))
- Bond v. Moore, 309 F.3d 770 (11th Cir. 2002) (discussion of AEDPA finality and the 90-day certiorari period following direct review)
- Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2005) (Florida rule that amended postconviction motions filed after a motion is stricken relate back to the original filing)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007) (trial court must give petitioner opportunity to amend a facially insufficient Rule 3.850 motion)