FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 3, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 96 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 0- cv -0 01 89 -RH-GRJ KURTIS ROY JETER, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 3, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, EDMONDSON, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Kurti s R oy Jet er, a Fl or id a st at e p ris on er p ro ceed in g p ro se, fi le d ape ti ti onfo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d

th e p et it io n a s p ro cedur al ly defau lt ed . Jet er co nt en ds th atwas e rro r be cau se he ha s s ho wn caus e fo r th e d efau lt . I. InSep te m

be r 20 06 Jet er p le ad edno co nt es t i n F lo rid a st at e co urt t o t wo co un ts of f

el on y ba tt ery. Thatco urt co nv ic te d h im an d s en te nc edhi m

to two co nc urren t fi ve -y ear t erm s o f pr ob at io n. J et er d idno t ap pe al . In 2 00 8 h is pr ob at io n was rev ok edan d h e was sen te nc edto fiv e y ears im pr is on m en t b ecau se he di d n otsubm itrequi redm on th ly repo rts , fai le d adru g t es t, ch an ge d h is ad dr es s wit ho utno ti fy in g h is pro ba ti on off ic er, an d d idno t at te nda requi redth erap y pr og ram . InMay 200 9, J et er fi le d apro se m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f un de r Fl a. R. Cri m . P. 3.8 50 (b )(3 ) al le gi ng : (1 ) hi s fe lo ny bat te ry co nv ic ti on s v io la te d t he Doubl e Je op ardy

Claus e o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t; (2) hi s p le a was co erce d; an d (3 ) in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l b ecau se hi s at to rn ey all owe d h im

to pl eadno co nt es t, d idno t p res erv e is su es forap pe al , anddi d n otfil e a t im el y po st co nv ic ti on m ot io n. Th e st at e co urt d en ie d h is pe ti ti on as u nt im el y , andth e Fl or id a Fi rs t Di st ric t Co urt o f App eal affi rm edth atde ni al witho uta writ te n o pi ni on . InJu ly 201 0 J et er fi le d ape ti ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 s eek in g re li ef o n 2th e sa m e g ro un ds th athe ha d a ll eg edin hi s R ul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n. Th e St at e m ov ed to di sm is s t he pe ti ti on . The di stric t co urt g ran te d the st at e’s m ot io n t o d is m is s. Itco nc lu de d t ha t th e cl ai m s J et er as se rte d i n h is Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n wer e p ro cedur al ly defau lt ed be cau se he ha d n otti m el y fil edth atm ot io n. J et er al le ge d t ha t h e h adhi redan at to rn ey to fil e h is Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, t ha t the att orne y ha d n otdo ne so , andth at he was d il ig en t an d d idall he co ul d t o e ns ur e th e at to rn ey pe rfo rm edas p ro m is ed . Insupp ort o f th atall eg at io n, J et er s ub m it te d t wo af fid av it s fr om

m em be rs of h is fam il y . The co urt ac cep te d a ll of t ha t as tru e, bu t i t co nc lu de d t ha t J et er h adno t sh own fact s amoun ti ng to a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e, no r ha d h e sh own cau se forth e pr oc edur al de fau lt . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y li m it ed to th e que st io n o f whe th er h is att orne y ’s all eg edpro fes si on al mis co nduc t co ul d co ns ti tu te cau se forth e st at e-co urt p ro cedur al de fau lt . II. The di stric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t a c la im is pro cedur al ly barre d i s a m ix ed qu es ti on of l aw an d fa ctth atwe rev ie w de n ov o. Og le v. J oh ns on , 48 8 F .3d13 64 , 13 68 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). A st at e co urt’s re jecti on of ape ti ti on er’s co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m on ad equa te an d i nd ep en de ntst at e p ro cedur al gro un ds wil l g en eral ly pr ecl ud e an y

fed eral habe as rev ie w of t ha t cl ai m , W ardv. Hal l, 5 92 F.3d11 44 , 311 56 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), an d t he Flo rid a co urt’s re jecti on of J et er’s p et it io n a s un ti m el y un de r Ru le 3.8 50 is a reject io n o n a de qu at e an d i nd ep en de ntst at e pr oc edur al gro un ds , see Whi dd on v. Du gg er, 8 94 F.2d12 66 , 12 67 –6 8 (1 1t h C ir. 19 90 ). A fed eral habe as co urt m ay rev ie w th e m eri ts of apro cedur al ly defau lt ed cl ai m if t he pe ti ti on er s ho ws caus e fo r th e p ro cedur al de fau ltan d a ctua l p reju di ce fro m it . See Ward, 5 92 F.3dat 1 15 7. To sh ow caus e, a p et it io ne r m us t de m on st rat e so m e o bjec ti ve fact orex te rn al to th e d efen se th atim pe de d h is effo rt to rai se th e cl ai m

pro pe rly in s ta te co urt. Mu rray v. Carri er, 4 77 U.S. 47 8, 4 88 , 10 6 S .Ct. 2 63 9, 2 64 5 (1 98 6) . Here, J et er al le ge s t ha t h e ret ai ne d c ou ns el to fil e a Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, b ut th e at to rn ey

di d n otfil e th e m ot io n b efo re the de ad li ne , m ay be be cau se th e at to rn ey ha d d ie d. Th e Fl or id a co urt d en ie d J et er’s Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n a s un ti m el y , ho wev er, b ecau se itfou ndth atJet er h adno t re ta in edco un se l t o fi le a po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n. W e p res um e th atfin di ng is co rrec t ab se ntcle ar an d 1 co nv in ci ng ev id en ce t ha t i t i s n ot . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 1) . W e can no t s ay
Under Florida law, a Rule 3.850 pe titioner has two year s after the judg ment and 1 sentenc e bec ome final to file a Rule 3.850 motion, butthat time period is extended by two year s if the petitioner r etained c ounsel to file the motion and counse l’s neg lect led to an untimely filing. F la. R. Crim. P . 3.850(b). The Florida court did not grant Jeter the two year extension beca use it found he ha d not retaine d counsel to file a post-conviction motion. 4th attwo affi da vi ts fro m Jet er’s fam il y

m em be rs an d J et er’s o wn as se rti on s p ro vi de cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce t ha t t he Flo rid a co urt’s fi nd in g was in co rrec t. The refo re, we d efer

to th atfin di ng . Becau se Jet er d idno t re ta inco un se l t o fi le a Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, i t fo ll ows th atco un se l’s al le ge d p ro fes si on al m is co nduc t can no t p ro vi de cau se to ex cu se Jet er’s p ro cedur al de fau lt . 2 AFFIRMED.

The district cour

t also grante d J eter

a ce rtificate of appe alability as to whethe r his § 2 2254 petition was timely . Be cause we a ffirm the dismissal of the pe tition on the grounds of proce dural de fault, we do not addre ss the timeliness issue. 5