Ace Patterson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

result, missing we it created and should RSGO. As vacate the defect risdictional along. summary about all have known District Court’s to and send this case back the District eq another The defendants raise Court with instructions to remand it to against argue consideration to dis uitable the Florida state court for further pro- is, This of the entire action. missal ceedings. course, already has the fact that this case sup a final litigated been AND REMANDED. VACATED Supreme port, they draw attention to diversity statement that “[o]nce

Court’s in court ...

case has been tried federal finality, efficiency, and

considerations Caterpillar overwhelming.”

economy become Lewis, 61, 75, 117

I nc. v. (1996). However,

467, 476, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 Caterpillar, yet has not unlike in this case PATTERSON, Ace Petitioner- trial, finality, gone to so “considerations Appellant, economy” yet are not “over efficiency, and Also, id. the defendants whelming.” See argument at oral least conceded SECRETARY, DEPART FLORIDA discovery deposi the written some of CORRECTIONS, MENT OF testimony obtained the course of tion Respondent-Appellee. could reused proceedings these federal be if we dismiss the entire case state court No. 12-12653 court. Fla. Stat. from federal Appeals, United States Court 90.803(22) exception an (providing Eleventh Circuit. testimony); former Fla. R. Civ. hearsay for Thus, law would allow the P. 1.330. (March 2017) of the waste parties mitigate portion back to by remanding created the case Finally, mindful that

state court. we are inefficiency

dismissing RSGO would create because Thermoset would any event by suing dismissal

respond RSGO’s subject matter

RSGO over same record, the fact that

state court. On this already litigated has been to sum

this case convince us to

mary judgment does not this action federal with

continue a party.

out RSGO as

III. CONCLUSION party, a nominal

Because RSGO is not ig- non-diverse cannot

its citizenship jurisdictional purposes. And be-

nored indispensable party

cause RSGO is an juris- preserve cannot

under Rule we dis-

diction over the rest of case Hashimoto, Georgetown

Erica Appellate Litigation Clinic, Kim, Zaneta Branden Lewiston, Georgetown University Law Center, DC, Kelehear, Washington, Zack Rivera-Diaz, University Maria Georgia Law, Athens, GA, School of for Petitioner- Appellant.

Bryan Jordan, Bondi, G. Pam Attorney Office, Tallahassee, FL, General’s for Re- spondent-Appellee. Yard, Kahn, Benjamin

Michelle Conrad Office, Orlando, Federal Public Defender’s FL, for Amici Curiae. CARNES,

Before ED Judge, Chief TJOFLAT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, WILLIAM ROSENBAUM, CARNES, JULIE PRYOR, JILL Judges. Circuit PRYOR, WILLIAM Judge: Circuit This appeal requires us to decide wheth- er a consent order that a not undergo chemical castration allows him eighteen-year-old to attack his convictions time, notwithstanding a second the statute- couple introduced Patterson to their petitions, 28 U.S.C. of successive ry bar 2244(b)(1). jury a Florida con- eight-year-old daughter before she went to burglary, aggra- Ace Patterson spent victed bed. Patterson ate dinner and time child, counts of a and two kidnapping vated couple night. and then left for the with battery. The trial court capital sexual But he later returned uninvited. and imprisonment life him to sentenced night, In the middle of the Patterson then filed Patterson chemical castration. his broke into his cousin’s home and lifted in collateral attacks unsuccessful several sleeping eight-year-old daughter cousin’s for a writ of petition court and a state outside, of her bed. He carried her out court dis- that the district corpus woods, raped and her. brought her to 2009, Patterson untimely. In missed as scream, she tried to Patterson When illegal án sen- a motion to correct filed gagged by sticking fingers her his down 8.800, on the tence, Fla. R. P. Crim. escape, tried to Pat- her throat. she When comply court failed to that the trial ground grabbed leg, dragged her her back terson chemi- statutory prerequisites for with the dirt, raped again. into the and her After vic- the state and the cal castration. After assault, way her girl found back to Pat- ad litem consented guardian tim’s to the sound of parents home. Her awoke motion, granted court a Florida terson’s daughter knocking on eight-year-old their undergo that he not chemical and ordered dirt, in crying, front covered door— court did not But the Florida castration. hair, missing clump of and covered judgment or order command- enter a new exam- and bruises. The medical scratches Secretary Department of the ing the vagina discovered dirt her iners later him. Patterson imprison Corrections lacerations. vaginal and severe that at- petition another federal then filed The district court tacked his convictions. jury In convicted Patterson or suc- petition as “second dismissed child, of a burglary, aggravated kidnapping 2244(b)(1). argues § Patterson cessive.” capital battery. sexual and two counts of undergo chemi- order that he not that the him to Florida trial court sentenced “judg- a new cal castration constitutes imprisonment for the bur 311 months of ment,” 2254(b)(1), makes 28 U.S.C. convictions and to glary kidnapping petition latest not second or successive imprisonment sentences of life consecutive Patterson, Magwood v. for the sexual bat and chemical castration 2788, 177 L.Ed.2d 592 sentencing form tery convictions. (2010). not “in But Patterson is because “committed [Patterson] 2254(b)(1), to,” § custody pursuant and di Department Corrections” chemi- undergo that he not consent order safely “keep rected the castration, trigger that order does not cal the remainder of Patterson for imprison” of federal collateral review. a new round court later af appellate A state his life. Magwood, 561 U.S. sentences. Pat firmed his convictions and Pat- 2788. We affirm dismissal (Fla. State, Dist. 736 So.2d terson petition as second successive. terson’s App. Ct. I. flurry BACKGROUND of col- then initiated a Patterson convictions, in- against his lateral attacks in the custo- is a Ace Patterson of habeas petitions four for writs cluding Depart- Secretary of the dy of the an ethics com- corpus in state court and In he visited ment of Corrections. tried his who plaint against prosecutor at their his cousin’s fiancée cousin and failed, ap- a Florida There, case. His efforts County, Florida. home Madison pellate court warned him that “the filing court, After his success Patter- any pe- further successive frivolous son resumed his attack on his 1998 convic- and/or appeals may imposi- titions or result in the tions federal court. In he filed a tion of sanctions.” Patterson v. petition second corpus, for writ of habeas App. Dist. So.2d Ct. again alleged that his convictions Fifth, were secured in violation of the Patterson filed his first federal Sixth, and Fourteenth A Amendments. corpus. for writ of habeas He magistrate judge dismissing recommended alleged that his were secured convictions as second or succes- in violation of the Due Process Clause of sive because Patterson in custody was “not Amendment, the Fourteenth the Self-In- pursuant to” the 2009 order. The district crimination Clause Fifth Amend- adopted that recommendation and ment, right and the to effective assistance dismissed petition Patterson’s as second or of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. successive. The district court dismissed petition as untimely. Ordinarily, that decision would A panel divided of this Court reversed. brought closure the victim of his Patterson v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., Fla. 812 crimes, who by eighteen years was then (11th 2016), F.3d 885 reh’g Cir. en banc old. granted, vacated, opinion 836 F.3d 135 2016). 8 panel concluded that pursued

Patterson then a different line was not or challenging of attack. Instead of second suc his convic- tions, cessive because challenged portion he the Patterson was in of his sen- pursuant required tence that chemical castration. —the undergo he not Patterson a motion to chemical castration. filed correct an ille- sentence, 3.80Ó, panel We vacated the gal opinion Fla. R. Crim. P. and ordered on the rehearing en ground appointed that the trial court banc. We comply did not Profes sor Erica statutory represent with the Hashimoto to prerequisites for chemi- Patter throughout cal son this appeal. castration. The thank Pro State Florida and the We fessor guardian ad litem for the Hashimoto for her excellent victim assented brief and oral argument keeping to Patterson’s motion. With Patterson im- with the life, highest prisoned prosecutor legal profession. for the tradition of the guardian ad litem viewed chemical castra- II. STANDARD OF REVIEW point”

tion as “moot and believed that a. contesting his motion was not worth “ex- peti We review de novo whether a posing] the victim to the painful remem- tion for a writ of habeas corpus is second brance of the Defendant’s against actions States, or successive. Stewart v. United her.” 856, 858 2009, trial granted III. DISCUSSION stated, Patterson’s motion in an order that Defendant “[T]he shall not have to trial, under- After a state prisoner has had a go previously [chemical as or- appeal, castration] direct opportunity and an for col- dered at sentencing Court courts, lateral review in the state he typi- styled above matter.” cally one, one, The 2009 order did gets chance to not vacate Patterson’s sentence collaterally and re- attack his conviction in federal place it with a new one. Nor did it here, direct court. exceptions With not relevant 2244(b) .of Corrections to hold section prohibits a state prisoner Patterson perform any filing affirmative act. from a “second or successive”

1325 2244(b). Stewart, 147, 153, prohibi This See Burton v. 549 U.S. 28 petition. U.S.C. (2007). 793, finality respect for the 127 S.Ct. 166 L.Ed.2d 628 grounded “is tion judgments.” Calderon of criminal A petition is not second or succes 538, 558, U.S. 118 S.Ct. Thompson, 523 challenges judgment” sive if it a “new is (1998). 1489, Finality, in 728 140 L.Ed.2d prisoner peti sued after the filed his first turn, achieving goals is essential tion, 324, Magwood, 561 U.S. at 130 S.Ct. justice system: criminal “Deterrence our 2788, but the new must be a upon expectation ‘one depends “judgment authorizing prisoner’s con certainly swiftly law violating the will (em 332, at finement.” Id. 130 S.Ct. 2788 just subject punishment, pun become omitted) Dotson, phasis (quoting demands that the ishment.’ Rehabilitation example, at For just that ‘he is convicted defendant realize Magwood, granted the district court sanction, that he stands in ly subject to prisoner’s first habeas and vacated ” Isaac, Engle v. need of rehabilitation.’ his sentence. Id. 130 S.Ct. 2788. n.32, U.S. The state court then conducted a new sen (1982) Paul M. Ba (quoting L.Ed.2d 783 tencing hearing judg and entered a new tor, Finality in Criminal Law and Feder imprisonment. ment and sentence Id. Prisoners, Corpus State al Habeas filed a second habeas When (1963); Henry L. Rev. J. Harv. held that it petition, Supreme Court Irrelevant? Collat Friendly, Is Innocence or successive because the was second Judgments, on Criminal 38 U. eral Attack prisoner’s challenge was the petition first (1970)). 142, Finality 146 also Chi. L. Rev. prison to the new sentence. Id. at 130 by helping put [her] “benefits the victim Although prisoner’s second S.Ct. 2788. prosecution trauma of the crime and the same errors as his petition restated Kemp, Presnell v. 835 F.2d behind [her].” alleged the errors he were petition, first 1988). (11th 1567, 1573 Cir. resentencing hearing, at the new because petition is second or Whether rejected the state court heard and judgment on “the chal depends successive arguments a second time. Id. prisoner’s Dep’t Insignares Sec’y, v. Fla. lenged.” made a second time is still And error “[a]n (11th 2014). Corr., 1273, 1278 755 F.3d error.” Id. new purposes that matters for judgment correctly The district court con authorizing judgment 2244 is “the section only judgment that author cluded that the Magwood, confinement.” 561 prisoner’s confinement is the sen izes Patterson’s omit (emphasis 130 S.Ct. 2788 U.S. judgment in 1998. That tence entered ted) Dotson, v. 544 (quoting Wilkinson custody of to the [Patterson] “committed 74, 83, 161 L.Ed.2d U.S. Corrections,” that Department (2005)). from This conclusion follows 253 vacated or commitment has never been 2244(b) the text of the statute. Section challenged judg that replaced. Patterson petitions or successive refers to second for a writ of ment in his 2006 2244(b). § “under section 2254.” 28 U.S.C. corpus. that governs petitions 2254 And section dis- his first federal was When judgment of a court” challenge “the State untimely, Patterson lost his one missed as “in prisoner is “pursuant to” which the review of chance to obtain federal habeas Accordingly, the bar custody.” Id. 2254. Sec’y, judgment. See Jordan ordinarily petitions on second successive Corr., F.3d Dep’t contesting from twice prevents peti- Patterson’s 2011 confinement. Cir. Because judgment authorizing challenges judgment negative tion a sec- that Patterson “shall not have to time, correctly ond the district court dis- undergo [chemical castration].” That the missed it as second or successive. The 2009 Department of Corrections must granted order that Patterson’s uncontest- together read both forms to determine the ed motion to correct his sentence does not scope of Patterson’s confinement does not trigger a new round of federal review. transform the 2009 order into a judgment custody. authorizes Patterson’s precedent Insignares

Our does not judgment is the support argument. Patterson’s Although Insignares Department Patterson and both allows the filed, imprison suc Patter- cessful motions to correct an illegal sen son. The imposes 2009 order no sentence tence under Florida Rule of Criminal Pro gives Department authority. no 3.800(a), cedure the Florida trial Patterson argues any also a step went further: it also that alters a necessarily sentence consti changed Insignares’s term of imprison tutes a new judgment, argument but this ment and “entered corrected [a] square difficult to precedent with our judgment.” and new 755 F.3d at 1277. This suggests changes that not all to a sentence corrected sentence [Insig- “committed create a new We have held that nares] mistake, when a court corrects a clerical Here, Corrections.” the Florida trial court no purposes arises for prison never issued a new sentence—in Federal Appellate Rule of Procedure writing or replace otherwise—to Patter 4(B)(1)(A). Portillo, See United States v. son’s 1998 sentence. The 2009 order bars 1165-66 imposition castration, of chemical but it Although applied we have not prece this does not otherwise address the term of dent in petitions, the context of second we imprisonment. short, Insig- reject the notion that the Antiterrorism nares had an intervening “judgment autho Act, and Effective Penalty Death the “cen confinement,” rizing [his] Patterson purpose” tral of which “was to ensure omitted) does not. Id. at 1279 (emphasis greater finality of state and federal court (quoting Magwood, 332, 561 U.S. at 130 judgments cases,” in criminal Gonzalez v. S.Ct. Sec’y Corr., Dep’t 1253, 366 F.3d for Patterson and the dissent contend that 2004) (en banc), 1269 is more the 1998 sentencing form and the order accommodating untimely and successive that Patterson undergo not chemical cas 4(b)(1)(A) petitions than Rule is of untime tration must together be read to describe ly And, appeals. direct contrary to the his conviction and current sentence accu assertion, 1332, dissent’s Dissenting Op. at rately, 1331-32, see Dissenting Op. at but because an order that corrects a clerical governing the text of the statute makes likely error would not create a judg new only judgment clear that the that counts ment, a petitioner would not be entitled to for purposes of section 2244 is judg the a second round of Mag habeas review. See “pursuant ment to” which the wood, 331, 561 U.S. at 130 S.Ct. 2788. custody.” 2254; “in 28 U.S.C. see Mag wood, Recognizing that his suggested rule 2788; 561 U.S. at runs Burton, Portillo, counter 156, to attempts 549 U.S. at Patterson 127 S.Ct. 793. to And limit Patterson is not in his test to whether a pursuant prisoner’s sen- 2009 order it tence materially changed, because does not authorize has but this lim- anything. Magwood, 332, 561 U.S. at itation still point. 130 misses the The relevant Instead, only 2788. it states question the magnitude is not change, judg- the issuance of a So.2d Dist. Ct. authorizing prisoner’s 1986), confine- App. ment “generally relate back” ment. Id. 130 S.Ct. 2788. The state judgment. to date of initial R. R. at. Ricou court did a new autho- not issue Merwin, & Sons Co. v. 94 Fla. 113 So. rizing confinement it Patterson’s when (1927). 745, 746 An order that relates back motion to granted Patterson’s correct original merely to an sentence amends the sentence. And the remains original order may and not entitle' the de- commands order that the Secre- to original judgment fendant vacatur of the tary imprison Patterson. 3.800(a) entry and of a That new one. Rule Many changes errors, encompasses ameliorative sentences clerical which relate might grant back, as suggests state courts a matter that other modifications un- course, as the removal of a fine or such Rule der also relate back to obligation, trigger a restitution would original sentencing and would not re- new round of federal habeas review under judge quire original to vacate the sen- standard of proposed Patterson’s “material know, (cid:127)tence and issue a new one. And we change.” argument, At oral Patterson’s course, judge Patterson’s counsel that orders that stated remove case did not do so. “in a might slightly restitution fines be matter, As practical Patter different than orders category” that re proposed son’s appeal resolution of this castration move chemical because fines might prisoners hurt more than helps. prisoner’s of a part and restitution are sure, To be if any change to a sentence custodial and cannot chal sentence triggers opportunity another federal lenged proceeding. in a habeas Ma review, prisoners would potentially States, 1209, 1211 mone United greater access to the federal writ of a challenge But whether corpus. But then state officials' portion to the removed of the sentence was less willing agree would be to sentenc initially cognizable proceeding a habeas ing changes prisoners, that benefit is irrelevant to whether the removal of state courts more hesitant would be produces that condition a new approve them. have the Courts discretion magnitude focus on the concession, accept prosecutor’s lieu type of change to the is beside merits, reaching in close cases and point. only question is whether the in cases where no occurred. See order authorizes confinement. error Ca States, sey v. United that, in argues dissent wake (1952); Santiago- S.Ct. L.Ed. 1317 ruling, prisoners our “all Florida who ob- (11th Warden, Lugo v. 3.800(a) tain a Rule favorable order strik- “have Cir. But Florida’s courts a or their ing vacating part of initial sen- duty statutory constitutional and not to simply tence ... have the trial will state accept an inappropriate concession” when judgment,” Dissenting a new enter “might to be the detriment victims Op. at the dissent au- but cites no people of crime State and/or thority proposition. for this And it is un- Florida,” 783 So.2d Reed v. every clear that Florida law would entitle 2001), App. 1196 n.2 Dist. Ot. 3.800(a) prisoner remedy. that Rule al- to on quashed grounds, other 837 So.2d 366 illegal lows a court correct an to sentence (Fla. 2002), a possibility that would arise any “at if the time” “records demonstrate if on their to more often a merciful concession re face an entitlement” relief. This errors, prosecutors rule encompasses quired clerical Carson v. to defend victims round of federal habeas to endure a new IY. CONCLUSION review. AFFIRM the dismissal of We .Patter- that “seem[ ] contends we to

The dissent son’s for a corpus. writ of habeas prosecutors that and state saying” be CARNES, Judge, concurring: ED Chief illegal refuse to correct sen- would

courts clear state law to avoid addi- tences under I fully concur the well-reasoned ma- review, see Dissent- tional federal jority opinion, separately only and write that Op. at contention ing make clear that this Court does not reach Nothing man. in our a straw constructs questions the two contained the second suggests prosecutors that analysis parties issue that we asked the to brief. modify refuse to an state courts would questions We stated those as follows: Instead, analysis our rec- illegal sentence. Secretary, Should v. may sometimes ognizes prosecutors that 2014), F.3d and Ferreira under Rule consent to motions Sec’y, Dep’t Corr., 494 F.3d 1286 prisoner’s when the sentence even 2007), be overruled insofar as Here, the record establishes that illegal. either of them [1] allows non-detrimen assented to Patterson’s prosecution change prisoner’s tal in a sentence to chemical from motion to remove castration Mag- constitute because it viewed chemical his sentence wood, [2] allows who ob point” light castration as a “moot tains a change non-detrimental in his life sentence and because con- challenge sentence to also original, testing the motion was not worth “ex- though undisturbed conviction as posing] painful the victim the remem- conviction had occurred at the date of against brance of actions [Patterson’s] change in the sentence? prosecution that her.” But we doubt Regardless question, of the first we readily assented to would have so Patter- Magwood opinion know from the itself it known that the son’s motion had result- question the second was not decided subject ing order would Patterson’s victim that case because the Supreme Court’s lengthy to a second round of habeas re- opinion tells us it was not. The Court view. expressly gives stated: “This case no us The Antiterrorism and Effective Death occasion to address” reasoning whether its Penalty prisoners Act gives only one allow a petitioner “would who obtains opportunity challenge their conditional writ as to his sentence to file a op- federal court. Patterson wasted that subsequent application challenging not years ago portunity ten when he filed his sentence, his resulting, new but also late. first Patterson would have us Mag original, undisturbed conviction.” any changes order that a prison- hold Patterson, 320, 342, wood v. trig- is a new er’s sentence 2788, 2802, (2010). 177 L.Ed.2d 592 a new round of federal review. But gers In his second or application, successive only judgment matters is the Magwood had not attempted challenge judgment that authorizes Patterson’s con- conviction, his undisturbed only his new very judgment finement —the that Patter- Supreme sentence. Id. The Court did note attacking eighteen years son has been Appeals “[s]everal Courts of again. and that he wants to attack The Act have held that a requires say petitioner that we “no who succeeds on a more.” The ciis- first correctly trict application court dismissed Patterson’s and is resentenced petition challenge only as second or successive. portion of a

1329 previous granted Insignares’ suc- Mr. motion to as a result of that arose n.16, at 130 S.Ct. at correct, action.” Id. 342 substantively cessful amending part omitted) (citing marks (quotation 2802 n.16 leaving Insig- of the sentence but Mr. Second, Sixth, and Seventh decisions of the remaining nares’ convictions and total Circuits). intact, custodial sentences so too did the grant succes- state trial court here Mr. Because Patterson’s second or Patter- challenge application correct, sive habeas does son’s motion to substantively va- conviction, might presented this case cating portion of the sentence but the undisturbed conviction/new leaving remaining Mr. Patterson’s con- Magwood reserved, allowing us issue victions and total custodial sentences in- Insig- to decide whether to overrule our tact. Just as Mr. Insignares benefitted not, Ferreira decisions. It does nares and sentence, from the new so too did Mr. however, judg- no because there was Patterson benefit from the new sen- result, ment in this case. As a that issue is just tence. And as the second habeas day. for another one petition Insignares filed Mr. asserted underlying related to claims convic- JORDAN, joined by Judge, Circuit (and sentence), tions not to the new so WILSON, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM too did the second habeas filed PRYOR, Judges, dissenting: JILL Circuit by Mr. Patterson assert claims related legitimate questions are about There (and underlying to his convictions not to Insignares Secretary, whether sentence). in Insignares, the new As Corrections, 755 F.3d 1273 Department of grant state trial court’s of Mr. Patter- 2014), correctly applied Mag son’s Rule 3.800 motion and its vacatur Patterson, 320, 561 wood v. U.S. of chemical castration punishment (2010), 2788, as to when 177 L.Ed.2d 592 original from the sentence constituted intervening judgment is an under 28 there resulted in a new resentencing 2244(b) 2254(b). §§ But if we are U.S.C. & judgment, though even Mr. Patterson’s undisturbed, I going Insignares to leave (life in re- prison) total custodial term major not see how [that case] [the “do same, though even mained the ity’s decision can coexist.” United here] petition chal- corpus current habeas 323, 343, 70 S.Ct. Bryan, States v. (1950) (Jackson, J., lenges only underlying convictions. L.Ed. con 884 now-vacated curring). explained As Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., Fla. Patterson v. panel opinion: (some 2016) F.3d 888-89 justice like principle A [is] “basic added). in brackets language alike,” cases should be decided Martin valiantly explain why Insignares tries Corp., 546 Capital v. Franklin U.S. its reasons —to the govern, does not 163 L.Ed.2d 547 them —are uncon extent one can ascertain (2005), dis- meaningful no [there is] vincing. Insignares’ case tinction between Mr. and Mr. Patterson’s case. Just as Mr. n : n n n ; n n n § Insignares’ initial was that, majority says Magwood, untimeliness, dismissed for so too was Pat- authorizes Mr. judgment.that petition. Mr. Patterson’s initial confinement original is the terson’s Mr. filed a motion Just as vacated judgment, which has never been trial court to correct his with the state That, Maj. replaced. Op. 1325-26. 3.800, so too illegal sentence under Rule think, on a number of levels. wrong trial I did Mr. Patterson. Just as the state (even AED- judgment why you A. criminal know think this is not a new PA) the conviction and the sen First, consists of judgment. you told me it didn’t Stewart, tence. See Burton v. confinement, change his and we talked 166 L.Ed.2d 628 you say about that. Now that Insignares Corr., (2007); Sec’y, Dep’t Ferreira v. you was different and started on con- (11th 1292-93 now, grounds, you finement say that Supreme empha Not has the Court piece paper there was a new called a the critical role that sized judgment in Insignares, which made all in plays judgment, dictionaries from the in difference the world. What is the time of AEDPA’s enactment confirm this . Insignares difference between and. this understanding. Barron’s See Law Dictio your opinion? case 1996) nary (defining “judg Ed. In my opinion, Counsel for the State: ment of conviction” as “the sentence in a Insignares, a judgment new and sen- formally criminal case entered in the tence, by that required is the Florida records”); Dictionary clerk’s Black’s Law Department of Corrections to “ 1990) (stating that Ed. ‘sentence’' lawfully order to have someone in their synonymous in ‘judgment’ are a crimi in Insignares.... exists action”). nal Member of the ... Court: So it’s punish- Chemical castration is a criminal piece paper judgment? called a law, ment under Florida see Tran v. piece Counsel for the It is State: 2007) 4th So.2d DCA paper complies with Florida law castration, (holding that chemical says gives this is the has been characterized the Florida you authority to hold person this Legislature penalty, part as a “is custody. sentence”), punishment defendant’s (however and the Rule one Member of the Court: Under that theo- it) wants to characterize eliminates that ry ... even if Mr. get Patterson doesn’t punishment Mr. from sen- case, relief in this someone who is in Mr. part tence. That order constitutes of Mr. tomorrow, Patterson’s exact situation Patterson’s sentence because it substan- gets a sentence of chemical castration tively changes way Depart- that the order, vacated pursuant to a 3.800 asks ment of can execute Corrections the initial judge her, him gets resentence judgment. Everyone but the rec- a full resentencing, gets a new ' ognizes reality. this minus the sentence of chemical castra- n # n n * # n person tion—that judgment? has Apparently sensing that this first reason Counsel for the State: That is a new insufficient, majority pivots,- is judgment. says distinguishable be Member of the piece Court: So it’s the case, cause the state trial court in that paper that matters? Rule, 3.800(a) issuing order, addition to Counsel for the It piece State: is a also Maj. entered a new Op. paper. really It is. This, essentially, at 1325-26. mirrors the Member Okay. of the Court: Got it. position that Florida took at argu oral your That is answer? It is the piece of ment: paper that matters.

Member of the Court: ... I want to why you my know think —and there Counsel for the State: That is an- are var- possible ious answers —but I want swer. order, chemically it cannot castrate Argument at 27:59- court’s of En Banc Oral

Audio respect. Mr. Patterson. So much for 29:27. n n n n n : n n a that there was new formal

It is true that, it seems judgment Insignares, piece pa- If this case is all about a First, me, Florida law does is irrelevant. per, then' we have wasted valuable time judgment be in require that a criminal not convening en and resources banc. If Patterson, 890; at writing. See is a formal paper what matters called (Fla. State, 387, 389 v. 351 So.2d Flowers prisoners then all Florida who judgment, 1977); P. Fla. R. Crim. 3.700. 1st DCA 3.800(a) a favorable Rule order obtain Second, that Rule law indicates striking vacating part of their initial 3.800(a) judg- can tantamount to orders i.e., punishment— initial their sentence — force of law when—as ments and have the the state trial court enter simply will a new sentence and end they impose here — judgment setting a new out the current Adams v. judicial labor. See incorporate the terms of the sentence and (Fla. 2007); 1125, 1126-27 3d DCA So.2d 3.800(a) judgment. Rule order the new (Fla. Rudolf, 2d 821 So.2d State judgment, apparently, That sort of a will Delvalle, 2002); 745 So.2d State v. DCA Magwood. suffice under (Fla. 4th Accord De DCA majority suggests nevertheless Bank, N.A., Fargo So.3d La v. Wells Osa every prisoner Florida law not entitle 2016) (en banc) 259, 261-62 3d DCA 3.800(a) Rule relief to a new who obtains interchangeability of the (explaining the judgment. Maj. Op. at 1327. But paper under Flor- “judgment” “order” and terms suggestion should not be taken seri- this law). ida identify ously, majority for the does not This, course, Florida De- why is the support Florida law to its theo- principle of acknowledges of Corrections- partment only that the correction of a ry. It offers Mr. Pat- chemically it cannot castrate example clerical error is an situation admit the If state officials terson. change “relates back” to the in which a 3.800(a) affects and modifies Rule order require the original sentence so as to sentence, i.e., judg- initial cáse, Mr. Patterson’s a new This enter ment, major- why left to wonder the course, one is involve the correction does not order amounts to noth- ity error, thinks that the majority’s so the exam- of a clerical legally than the ineffectual and ing more ple helpful. is not musings of a state trial court. insignificant, majority really does not be- Even the told, again, have been time turns on whether there We lieve that this case spirit judgment, meant piece paper AEDPA —in both text a new called is —is way yet that states administer another reason for its respect provides for it Here, majority, justice systems. holding. According how- their criminal 3.800(a) not affect Mr. ever, majority not concerned about Rule order does it “does ig- It Patterson’s confinement because way operates. that Florida law Maj. anything.” Op. 1326. holding that chemical not authorize nores Florida law says confidently, this even punishment, a criminal castration is that the Florida De- though recognizes it that under Florida recognize refuses to 3.800(a) must read the of Corrections partment like the one here law a Rule Rule together with the relegates the force of law. And can have scope order to “determine of Correc- to the dustbin Id. that, confinement.” state trial [Mr.] concession due to the tions’ rejected Supreme length Court will set out the of his Magwood, custody that is the criti- argument state’s confinement. determining whether a habe- concept cal I prefer panel’s approach, the successive, is second or as corpus court cor- looks to see whether the state 333-34, at 130 S.Ct. 2788 see 561 U.S. legal rects a error and enters a new sen- “judgment” that the is what (explaining substantively tence that is different than

matters), majority the seems to yet here Patterson, original the sentence. See custody, and bases its give primacy may It it perfect, F.3d 891. not be is the Rule or- decision on whether more faithful to than what the Department the of Corrections gives der majority offering. is Mr. Patterson. I do power the to confine n n n n n n n majority that why know thinks Magwood jettisoned can be rationale that, majority .by telling The closes us like driftwood. matter,” practical approach “as a taken

* * * * * * * panel, by and endorsed Mr. Patter- son, “might prisoners hurt more than it majority analogizes to an order Maj. itself, helps.” Op. at 1327. In and of error, Maj. which corrects a clerical see majority’s prediction about the conse- Op. at which we indicated quences today’s decision is neither sur- judgment not constitute a new under does prising inappropriate. nor Courts often Appellate the Federal Rules of Procedure. Portillo, practical have to consider the States v. effects of the United they 1165-66 But the principle adopting. are is re- What setting up proverbial straw is markable is the majority reason the be- majqrity man, way anyone because there is no can prisoner-friendly. lieves its decision is say prohibits that an order which the sub- According majority, panel to the if the of chemical castration punishment stantive approach prevails, “then state officials any way is in clerical. willing agree would be less to sentenc- Indeed, majority’s position is the ing changes that benefit prisoners, and day cause a conflict may one with cases state courts would be more hesitant Imagine a in which a like Portillo. case approve them.” I do Id. not understand. Florida court sentences a defendant to a Here, example, prosecution for con- years, a judg- term of 10 but then issues (and ceded error the state trial court mistakenly ment which states that the sen- 3.800(a) relief) granted Rule Flori- because years. tence is 100 No one notices the da law makes it clear that the punishment until error the defendant has been cus- improperly of chemical castration was im- tody years. for If the state court issues posed. See Houston v. 852 So.2d judgment which corrects the clerical 5th DCA error and commits the defendant to the What the seems to saying is Department of Corrections that, in preclude order to a new round of correct) (the will, years, for accord- corpus federal habeas proceedings rationale, ing majority’s apparent prisoners state under Magwood, state Mag- constitute a new prosecutors may not concede a sen- piece paper— wood. There will be new illegally imposed tence has been even the amended be af- will —which i.e., clear, firmatively worded, though subject state law on the give it will authority of Corrections the and that state courts decline to cor- keep custody, the defendant in undoubtedly illegal rect a sentence that is though it is their under state law even words, prose- state

duty to do so. other (or ig- courts will bend

cutors state

nore) in order to achieve the state law limiting goal desirable

purportedly prisoners to further federal

access review. corpus majority’s underlying assumption— I not share —is as odd as it is do Patterson, 812 F.3d at

disconcerting. See (“The (Haikala, J., concurring) notion refrain from cor- judge

that a trial would that all of the

recting sentencing error acknowledged ... to avoid a

parties have

potential repugnant is office.”). judicial If the is however, place then the trust we

right, adjudicate issues of federal

state courts to constitutional) (both statutory and

law misplaced, and the deference

completely AEDPA is a colossal give

we them under unjustified mistake. FELDMAN, Plaintiff-

Andrew

Appellant, DAWN, INC., Vyto Tozer,

AMERICAN Rasband, Defendants-

Paul

Appellees.

No. 16-11663 Appeals,

United States Court

Eleventh Circuit.

(March 2017)

Case Details

Case Name: Ace Patterson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Mar 3, 2017

Citation: 849 F.3d 1321

Docket Number: 12-12653

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.