FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT May 21, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1307 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-00021 -CV -O RL -22KRS PE TE R A LL ENST IT ES , Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CO RRE CT IO NS , F lorida, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF FLORIDA, Re spon de nts -Appe lle es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

(M ay 2 1, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T a nd B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Peter Allen S tites, a F lorida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’ s dism issal of his habeas petiti on, 28 U. S. C. § 225 4, as bar red by the one-The district court pre viously dismiss ed Stites’s section 2254 petition as time-bar red, a nd Stit es 1 appea led to this C o u rt . We vacated and r emande d for de termination of whe ther Stites’s Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800( c) motion tolled the one-year statute of limit ations. His case is back on a ppeal afte r re mand. 2 y ear statut e of

li m itatio ns o f the A nti te rr or ism a nd E ff ec tiv e D eath P en al ty

A ct of 1996 ( “ A E D PA ”)
. R ev er sib le e rr or ha s be ensho w n; w e va cate a nd r em an d f or 1 ad dit ion al pr oc ee din gs. O n 9 S ep te m

be r 1999 , astate appe llate c ourt a ff irm ed S tit es ’ s c onvi ct ion s for lew d or lascivious assault upo n a child. F or these conviction s, S tites received
co nse cu tiv e se nte nc es of

15 and 1 2. 89 y ears ’ im

pr iso nm en t. S hortly

a ft er the af fi rm an ce of

his c onvi ct ion s, S tit es f

ile d aF la
. R. Cr im
. P. 3. 800( c) m oti on t o
re duc e a le ga l se nte nc e. A ft er c ondu ct ing ahe ar ing on the m oti on, the tr ia l c ourt, by way of an am ended judgm ent dated 2 Jun e 2000, reduced Stites’ s 12.89-y ear
se nte nc e to 7
. 31 y ears , to run c onc ur re ntl y w iththe 15- y ear se nte nc e. O n 31 O ct obe r 2000 , S tit es f

ile d aF la
. R. Cr im
. P. 3. 850 m oti on; pr oc ee din gs o n th is
m oti on e nde d w he n th e ap pe llate c ourt a ff irm ed the de nia l of

r el ie f an d is sue d it s
m andate on 18 Ju ne 2004
. Stites filed his section 22 54 petiti on on 30 Dece m ber 20 04
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c al cu la te d th e start of the li m itatio ns p er iod

ba se d onthe date the state appellate court originally aff irm ed Stites’ s convictio ns. T he courtStit es did not raise his F err eira argument b el o w; an d we generally do not consider issues not 2 raised be fore the district court. See Ny land v. Moore, 216 F .3d 1264, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000). B ut we will addr ess the ar gument here beca use it specific ally

was addressed in the C OA and F err eira was decide d afte r the district cour t issued its order dismissing Stites’s petition. S ee Mur ray v . United State s, 14 5 F .3 d 12 49 , 12 51 (1 1th Cir
. 19 98 ) (s c op e of re vie w o n a

pp e a l f ro m di smi ssa l of

a po stconviction motion is restricted to issue spec ified in the COA). In addition, we libera lly

construe pr o se plea dings. See Tanne nbaum v. United States, 148 F .3d 3 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 3 co nc lud ed

that S tit es ’ s R

ule 3. 800( c) m oti on d id n ot t oll the li m itatio ns p er iod , an d di sm iss ed

the pe tit iona s ti m e- barr ed
. W e gr an te d ac er tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty (“ COA ”) on w hether the district court properly dism issed Stites’ s petition as untim ely in the ligh t of Fer

reira v. S ec’ y , D ep’ t of Corr. , 494 F. 3d 12 86 (11th Cir. 20 07 ), pe ti ti on forcert . fil ed(U.S. Jan . 30 , 20 08 ) (0 7- 10 08 ). O n a ppe al , S tit es arg ue s th at

his pe tit ionw as ti m el y

und er F er re ir a be ca use his m odified sentence becam e final on 2 June 200 0. W e re view de novo a district 2
co urt’ s de te rm inatio n th at aha be as pe tit ionis tim e- barr ed
. Mo or e v. Cr osby , 321 F. 3d 13 77, 1379 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). 3 T he A E D PAim

pose s aone -y ear lim itatio ns p er iod on a ll habe as c or

pus p e t i t i o n s . S e e 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( me a s u r i n g th i s o n e - ye a r p e r i o df r o m,
am ong oth er

thi ngs, “ the da te on whic h th e j udgm en t be cam e fi na l by the
co nc lu si on of d ire ctrev ie w or t he ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e fo r se ek in g s uc h re vi ew”). While a “properly

filed application for State post-conviction or other collatera lTh e pe tit ion e r i n F e rr e ir a ha d b e e n r e se nte nc e d p ur su ant to a F la .R. Cr im. P. 3 .8 00 (a ) m oti on to 4 corr ect a sentenc e. 4 review ” is pending , how ever, the lim itations period is toll ed. 28 U. S. C. § 2 24 4( d) (2 ). InF er re ir a, w e co nc lud ed

that “ A E D PA ’ s st at

ute of li m itatio ns b eg ins to
run f ro m the da te both th e co nvi ct ion and the sentence the petitioner is serving at the ti m e he f

ile s hi s a ppl ic at ionbe co m e fi na l be ca use j udgm en t i s ba se d onboth the c onvi ct ionand the se nte nc e. ” 494 F
. 3d at 12 93 ( em pha sis in or igi na l) ( re ly ing on Burton v . S tewart, 127 S.Ct. 793 (200 7)). Following the logic of Ferre ira, 4 Stites wa s “ in custod y ” pursuant to hi s 2 Jun e 2000 resentencing judgm ent -- which w as based on his 7 Septem ber 1999 conv iction -- w hen he filed his federal habe as pe tit ion
. S ee F er

re ir a, 494 F
. 3d at 12 92 ( “ the j udgm en t t o w hic h [ se ct ion 2254 (a)] ref

ers is the underly ing conv iction and m ost recent sentence that authorizes the petition er’ s current detention”) (em phasis add ed). T hus, under Fe rr ei ra , the 2 June 200 0 j udgm en t tha t i m pr iso ne d S tit es c ontro ls the start of A E D PA ’ s st at

ute of li m itatio ns. Whe n S tit es f ile d hi s to lli ng R

ule 3. 850 m oti on, 149 day s inthe li m itatio ns p er iod ha d go ne unt oll ed
. B etw ee n th e tim e his Ru le 3. 850 pr oc ee din gs e nde d and whe n he f ile d hi s se ct ion225 4 pe tit ion , a nothe r 194 day s of untol led tim e passed. S o, a total of 343 d ay s of untol led tim e had passedThe c ertifica te of a ppeala bility also asked whether

the district court e rre d in the light of D elanc y 5 v. Fla. D ep’t of Corr ., 246 F.3d 1328 ( 11th Cir. 2001). In Delanc y , we de termined that De lancy ’s Rule 3.800(a) motion challeng ing c onsecutive se ntence s proper ly was filed unde r sec ti o n

2244(d)( 2) and to l l ed t he limitations period -- eve n though the state cour t had dismissed it as being br oug ht pu rsu ant to the wr on gstatut or y ve hic le -- be c a

us e the mot ion , o n it s f

a c e , c omp lie d w ithstate proce dural a

nd filing r equire ments. 246 F.3d at 1330- 31. But here , at issue was not whether Stit es’s Rule 3.800(c) motion complied with st ate pr ocedur al and f iling re quirements, but whethe r the motion constituted an “ application for State p o s t -c o nviction or other c ollatera l review .” We have c on c lud e d th at a

Rul e 3. 80 0( c ) m ot ion

to r e du c e a

le g a l se nte nc e is n ot a

n a pp lic atio n f

or po stconviction relief or other collater al revie w within the meaning of section 2244(d)( 2): t h e m o t i on do e s n ot ch a lle ng e the le g a lity of the se nte nc e . A le xan de r v . Se c ’y , D e p’ t of Cor r. , _ _ F .3 d _ _ ( 11 th Cir. A pril 8, 2008). We, the ref

ore, do not a ddress Stit es’s appellate arguments about Dela ncy and whether the Rule 3.800(c) motion tol led the limitations period. 5 w he n S tit es f

ile d hi s se ct ion225 4 pe tit ion ; and h is p et iti on w as ti m el y . T he dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in not c al cu la tin g th e limitatio ns p er iod f ro m the da te of

the
re se nte nc ing j udgm en t a s m an da te d by F er re ir a. A cc or din gly , w e va cate a nd
re m an d f or a ddi tio na l pr oc ee din gs. 5 VACATED AN D REMANDED.