FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOV 20 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11692 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 1 4 2 9 7 - CV- DLG W A R R E N L A V E L L J A C K S O N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , J a m e s M c D o n o u g h , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 20, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , W IL S O N an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A ppe l l a ntW a rr e n L a ve l l J a c ks on ( “ J a c ks on” ) , af e de r a l pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng p ro se , ap p eal s th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s p ro se 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on f or aw r i tof habe a s c orpus c onc e rni ng hi s pr i or1992 s t a t e c onvi c t i on f orc oc a i ne po ss es si on w hi ch the di stri ctcourtconstrued as a m ot i on t o v ac at e, corr ec t , or se t a s i de as e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255. J a c ks on c onc e de s tha thi s pr i or s ta te c o n v ic tio n a n ds e n te n c e h a de x p ir e d , b u t a r g u e s th a t h e c o u lds till a tta c kth is c o n v ic tio n b e c au s e it w a s u s e dto e n h a n c e th e f e d e r a l s e n te n c e h e is c u rr e n tly s e rv in g a n db e c au s e th e p r io re x p ir e dc o n v ic tio n w a s a lle g e d lyo b ta in e din vi ol a t i on of

hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l . H e ba s e s hi s S i xth A m e ndm e nt a r gum e nton the s t a t e tr i a l c ourta nd hi s c ouns e l ’ s a l l e ge d f a i l ur e t o i nf

orm hi m of h is r ig h t to ap p o in te dc o u n s e l o n ap p e a l. In a procee di ng on a c ol l at er al att ac k, w e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual fi n d i n g s fo r cl ear erro r an dl eg al i ssu es de no vo . L ynn v. U ni ted States , 365 F . 3d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( § 2 2 5 5 c o n te x t) ; L e Cr oyv . Se c ’ y, Flor i da D e

pt. of C o rr. , 4 2 1 F .3 d1 2 3 7 , 1 2 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 126 S . C t . 1458 ( 2006) ( § 2254 c ont e xt ) . W e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ p] r o s e pl e a di ngs a r e he l d t o al e s s s tr i nge nt s ta n d a r dth a n p le a d in g s d r a f te db ya tto rn e y s a n dw ill, th e r e f o r e , b e lib e r a lly construed. ” T

ra w i n skiv. U

n i ted T ech s. , 313 F . 3d 1295, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2002) (c i t at i on om i tt ed).3

D is tr ic t c o u rts h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to e n te rta in § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n s o n ly f r om pe t i t i one r s w ho a r e “ i n c us t odyi n vi ol a t i on of the C ons t i tut i on orl a w s or tr e a tie s o f

th e U n ite dS ta te s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) ; see a l so Me a n s v . A la b a ma , 2 0 9 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W h e n ap r is o n e r ’s s e n te n c e h a s f u lly expi re d, he i s not“ i n cust od y” as re qu i re d b y § 22 41 , and the m er e possi bi l i ty that the pr i orc onvi c t i on w i l l be us e d t o e nha nc e as e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ora nys ubs e que nt cr i m es i s notenou gh t o render hi m “ i n cust od y. ” M ale ng v . C ook , 490 U . S . 488, 49 2, 10 9 S . C t . 19 23 , 19 26 , 10 4 L . E d. 2d 54 0 (19 89 ). T he S up re m e C ou rthas a c know l e dge d, how e ve r , tha tw he n a§ 2254 pe t i t i on c oul d be r e a d a s a s s e rt i ng a c h a lle n g e to ap r e s e n t s e n te n c e th a t a c tu a llyw a s e n h a n c e db yth e a lle g e d lyin v a lid pri or conv i ct i on , the pri soner i s “ i n cust od y” for purpo se s of f eder al habeas ju r is d ic tio n . I

d. a t 4 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 0 9 S . C t. a t 1 9 2 6 - 2 7 ; see a l so L a c ka w a n n a C o u n ty D ist. A t t ’y v. C o ss , 532 U . S . 394, 402, 121 S . C t . 1567, 1573, 149 L . E d. 2d 608 ( 2001) ( pe t i t i one rf

ound t o be “ i n c us t ody ” f or§ 2254 purpos e s be c aus e he c h a lle n g e da n a lle g e d lyin v a lide x p ir e dc o n v ic tio n a n ds e n te n c e a s e n h a n c in g h is c u rr e n t s e n te n c e ) . E ve n though apr i s one rm a ybe “ i n c us t ody ” unde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , the f a c t th a t ap r io rc o n v ic tio n w a s u s e dto e n h a n c e ap r e s e n t s e n te n c e d o e s n o t e n title the pr i s one rt o c ha l l e nge the pr i orc onvi c t i on. I n D an i el s v . U ni ted States ,4

5 3 2 U . S. 3 7 4 , 3 8 2 , 1 2 1 S. Ct . 1 5 7 8 , 1 5 8 3 , 1 4 9 L. Ed . 2 d5 9 0 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , th e Su p r e me C ourthe l d tha ti f

“ apr i orc onvi c t i on us e d t o e nha nc e af e de r a l s e nt e nc e i s no l onge rope n t o di r e c torc ol l a t e r a l a tt a c k i n i t s ow n r i ghtbe c aus e the de f e nda nt f a i l e d t o pur s ue thos e r e m e di e s w hi l e the yw e r e a va i l abl e ( orbe c aus e the de f e nda nt di d s o uns uc c e s s f

ul l y ) , ” am ova nt ’ s § 2255 m ot i on c ha l l e ngi ng the pr i orc onvi c t i on w i l l fa i l because the pres um pt i on of val i di ty thatatt ac hed t o the pri or conv i ct i on at th e tim e o f

s e n te n c in g is c o n c lu s iv e . T h e C o u rt h e ldth a t ad e f e n d a n t g e n e r a llyis no tent i t l ed t o col l at er al l y a tt ac k h i s pri or conv i ct i on throu gh a m ot i on un der § 2 2 5 5 u n le s s h e a lle g e s th a t th e c o n v ic tio n w a s o b ta in e din v io la tio n o f th e r ig h t to c ouns e l a nnounc e d i n G i de on v . W ai nw r i ght , 372 U . S . 335, 83 S . C t . 792, 9 L . E d. 2 d7 9 9 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . D a n ie ls , 5 3 2 U .S . a t 3 8 2 , 1 2 1 S . C t. a t 1 5 8 3 . I n L ac kaw anna , the C ourte xt e nde d the hol di ng i n D a n ie ls t o p et i t i on er s c h a lle n g in g e x p ir e ds ta te s e n te n c e s u n d e r§ 2 2 5 4 . L ac kaw anna , 53 2 U . S . at 3 9 6 - 9 7 , 1 2 1 S . C t. a t 1 5 7 0 . L ac kaw anna a l s o pr ovi de d a n e xc e pt i on f ora tt a c ki ng a pri or expi re d st at e s ent ence w hen such p ri or conv i ct i on had b ee n o bt ai ned w i tho utthe benefi tof coun se l i n v i ol at i on of G i de on . I d. at40 4, 12 1 S . C t . at 1 5 7 4 . H o w e v e r , a s w ith a n y§ 2 2 5 4 p e titio n , ap e titio n e rs e e k in g r e lie f u n d e rth is e x c e p tio n m u s t s a tis f

yth e p r o c e d u r a l p r e r e qu is ite s f o rr e lie f . I d. I n G i de on , the S up re m e C ou rthel d thata s t at e c ou rt ’ s r ef usal t o app oi nttri al5

c ouns e l , upon r e que s t , f ora n i ndi ge ntde f

e nda nta c c us e d of

anon- c api t a l f

e l ony v io la te dd u e p r o c e s s . G i de on , 372 U . S . a t343- 45, 83 S . C t . a t796- 97. T he r i ght to c o u n s e l a t tr ia l f

lo w s f r o m th e e x p lic it g r a n t o f th is r ig h t in th e S ix th A m e ndm e ntm a de appl i c abl e t o the s t a t e s thr ough the D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e of the F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. I d. at33 9, 83 S . C t . at79 4. T here i s no con st i tut i on al r ig h t to ap p e a l. R o s s v . Mo ffitt , 417 U . S . 600, 611, 94 S . C t . 2437, 2444, 41 L . E d. 2d 341 ( 1974) . H ow e ve r , i f a n appe a l r i ghti s gr a nt e d bys t a tut e , a n i ndi ge nt d e f e n d a n t a ls o h a s ar ig h t to ap p o in te dc o u n s e l in h is f ir s t ap p e a l a s o f

r ig h t. D o u g la s v . Ca lifo rn ia , 372 U . S . 353, 357- 58, 83 S . C t . 814, 817, 9 L . E d. 2d 811 ( 1963) ( hol di ng tha tde ni a l of i ndi ge ntappe l l a nt s ’ appe a l w i thoutthe be ne f i tof c o u n s e l v io la te dth e E q u a l P r o te c tio n C lau s e o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t) . W e have not ed thatthe D ani e l s/ L ac kaw anna exce pt i on i s noti m pl i ca t ed w h e r e ad e f

e n d a n t w a s r e p r e s e n te db yc o u n s e l d u r in g th e p r o c e e d in g s r e la te dto h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n u n d e r ly in g th e e x p ir e ds e n te n c e . See H ub ba rd v. H

al ey , 317 F . 3d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 6 n .2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c ap ita l c o n te x t w h e r e p e titio n e ra tte m p te dto e xpa nd hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on t o a tt a c k a n e xpi r e d c onvi c t i on s e rvi ng a s the ba s i s f or a g g r a v a te df

a c to rin s e n te n c in g o r d e r ) . A s a n in itia l m a tte r , w e c o n c lu d e f r o m th e r e c o r dth a t J a c k s o n m e t th e “in c us t ody ” r e qui r e m e nt . H e r e , J a c ks on br oughtthe pr e s e nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on a tt a c ki ng6

a1992 s t a t e c onvi c t i on f orc oc a i ne pos s e s s i on a nd c onc e de d tha tthe s e nt e nc e on thi s c onvi c t i on ha d e xpi r e d. H ow e ve r , he e xpl i c i t l ya l l e ge d tha tthi s c onvi c t i on w as u sed t o en h an ce th e fed eral l i fe sen t en ce h e w as cu rren t l y serv i n g . T h u s, un der M ale ng , J a c k s o n m e t § 2 2 5 4 ’s “in c u s to d y ” r e q u ir e m e n t. See M ale ng , 490 U .S . a t 4 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 0 9 S . C t. a t 1 9 2 6 - 2 7 . N everthel es s, Ja ckson w as no tent i t l ed t o att ac k h i s e xp i re d con vi ct i on un der the G i de on e xc e pt i on a rt i c ul a t e d i n D a n ie ls a nd L ac kaw anna . F r o m th e r e c o r d , it i s c l e a rtha tJ a c ks on w a s r e pr e s e nt e d byc ouns e l dur i ng the tr i a l c ourtpr oc e e di ngs r e la te dto h is p r io re x p ir e ds ta te c o u rt c o n v ic tio n a n ds e n te n c e . See H u b b a rd , 31 7 F . 3d at12 56 n. 20 . T he st at e c ou rtal so i nform ed Ja ckson thathe coul d app ea l hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence and n othi ng i n the re cord i nd i ca t es thathe re qu es t ed c o u n s e l o n ap p e a l a n dw a s r e f u s e d . F u rth e rm o r e , th o u g h th e r e is ar ig h t to appo i nt ed coun se l on a def endant ’ s f

i rs tappeal as of ri gh tper D ouglas , thi s i s not the e xc e pt i on a rt i c ul a t e d i n D a n ie ls a nd L ac kaw anna . R a th e r , D a n ie ls a nd L ac kaw anna s pe a k onl yt o G i de on - typ e v io la tio n s . See D a n ie ls , 532 U . S . a t382, 1 2 1 S . C t. a t 1 5 8 3 ; L ac kw anna , 532 U . S . a t404, 121 S . C t . a t1574. I n a nye ve nt , a s the m a gi s tr a t e j udge c orr e c t l ynot e d a nd t o w hi c h J a c ks on di d notobj e c t , J a c ks on w a s note nt i t l e d t o a tt a c k hi s pr i ore xpi r e d s t a t e c onvi c t i on because hi s pet i t i on w as un t i m el y. 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d) (provi di ng for a1-ye ar7

s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s f

o rp e titio n s f

o rw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s ) ; N

e t t le s v . W

ai nw r i ght , 677 F . 2d 404, 409- 10 ( 5th C i r . U ni tB 1982) ( f a i l ur e t o r a i s e obj e c t i ons t o the m agi stra t e’ s r eportand recom m endat i on bars a party f rom att ac ki ng on appeal f a c tua l f i ndi ngs a dopt e d bythe di s tr i c tc ourte xc e ptupon gr ounds of pl a i n e rr oror m a n if e s t in ju s tic e ) . J a c k s o n f

ile dh is p e titio n m o r e th a n ad e c a d e a f te rh is conv i ct i on . T hu s, Ja ckson d i d n otsa t i sf y the procedural prer equi si t es for r el i ef , w hi c h i s ane c e s s a ryc om pone ntof ac ol l a t e r a l a tt a c k e ve n w he n a l l e gi ng a G i de on - typ e v io la tio n . See L ac kaw anna , 5 3 2 U .S . a t 4 0 4 , 1 2 1 S . C t. a t 1 5 7 4 . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f

f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng J a c ks on’ s § 2255 m ot i on. AF F I RME D.