FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT March 13, 2008 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- 15642 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 1 9 8 8 - C V- P AS M A R L I N J . O U S L E Y , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s SE CR ET ARY FOR THE DEP ARTM ENT O F C O R R E C T I O N S , 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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 13, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M ar l i n J. O usl ey , a F l ori da pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di sm i ss al of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on a s unt i m e l y . O us l e y a r gue s tha tthe st at e tri al co u rterro n eo u sl y co n stru ed h i s “ M o t i o n fo r R el i ef fro m Ju d g m en t ” as a s u c c e s s iv e F la .R .C r im .P . 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n f o rp o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e lie f . O u s le y a s s e rts that , pu rs uantt o F l a. R . A pp . P . 9. 04 0(c) (provi di ng thati f aparty s ee ks an i m prop er re m edy, the cause s hal l be tre at ed as i f the prop erre m edy w as soug ht ), the court s h o u ld h a v e c o n s tru e d h is m o tio n a s ap e titio n f o rs ta te h ab e a s c o rp u s r e lie f . O us l e y a r gue s tha tthe s t a t e c ourt ’ s f i ndi ng tha thi s m ot i on w a s as e c ond R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on f

orpos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f c a nnotf orm the ba s i s f

ordi s m i s s i ng the i ns t a nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on be c aus e F l a . R . A pp. P . 9. 040( c ) w a s i nc ons i s t e nt l y a nd i rr egul ar l y app l i ed. H e f urther c on t ends that , had thatrul e bee n app l i ed c o n s is te n tly , h is m o tio n p r o p e r ly w o u ld h a v e b e e n c o n s tru e d a s ap e titio n f o rs ta te habe a s r e l i e f

, a nd, the r e f

or e , w oul d ha ve be e n “ pr ope r l y f i l e d” s o a s t o t ol l the one - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f orf i l i ng the i ns t a nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on. F orthe r e a s ons s e tf o rth mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of a § 22 54 pet i t i on as unt i m e l y . P ugh v. S m i th, 465 F . 3d 1295, 1298 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . W e r e vi e w the d istrict co u rt’s fa ctu al d eter m in atio n s f o r c learer ro r. L eC ro y v . S ec ’y, F la. D ep ’t of C orr s . , 421 F . 3d 1237, 1259 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve3

D e a th P e na l ty A c tof

1996 ( “ A E D P A ” ) i m pos e s aone - y e a rpe r i od of l i m i t a t i ons f orw r i t s of

habe a s c orpus tha truns f r om , i nt e ra l i a , “ the da t e on w hi c h the j udgm e ntbe c a m e f

i na l by the c onc l us i on of di r e c tr e vi e w orthe e xpi r a t i on of the tim e f o rs e e k in g s u c h r e v ie w .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . P u r s u a n t to S upr e m e C ourtR ul e 13. 3, “ [ t ] he t i m e t o f i l e ape t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

c e rt i or a r i runs f r om the da t e of

e ntry of the j udgm e ntoror de rs oughtt o be r e vi e w e d, a nd not f r o m th e is s u a n c e d a te o f th e m a n d a te .” C h a v e r s v . S e c ’y , F la . D e p ’t o f C o rr s ., 46 8 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 75 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). “ T he t i m e duri ng w hi ch a properl y f i l ed appl i c a t i on f

orS t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on orothe rc ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w w i th r e s pe c tt o the pe rt i ne ntj udgm e ntorc l a i m i s pe ndi ng s ha l l notbe c ount e d t ow a r d a ny pe r i od of l i m i t at i on . . . . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d)(2). M ot i on s und erF l ori da R ul e of C ri m i nal P r o c e d u r e 3 .8 5 0 h a v e atw o - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . F la .R .C r im .P. 3 .8 5 0 ( b ) . W h i l e th e A ED PA d o e s n o td e f i n e th e t e rm “ p r o p e r l y f i l e d , ” th e U . S. S upr e m e C ourti n A rtuz v. B e nne tthe l d tha t“ a n appl i c a t i on i s ‘ pr ope r l y f i l e d’ w he n i t s de l i ve ry a nd a c c e pt a nc e a r e i n c om pl i a nc e w i th the appl i c abl e l a w s a nd rul e s gove rni ng f

i l i ngs . ” 531 U . S . 4, 8, 121 S . C t . 361, 364, 148 L . E d. 2d 213 ( 2000) . T he S upr e m e C ourtnot e d “ the f orm of the doc um e nt , the t i m e l i m i t s upon i t s de l i ve ry , the c ourta nd of f i c e i n w hi c h i tm us tbe l odge d, a nd the r e qui s i t e f i l i ng fe e” as exam pl es of such l aw s and rul es , and exp l ai ned that“ the qu es t i on w hether4

an appl i ca t i on has bee n ‘ prop er l y f i l ed’ i s qui t e s epar at e f

rom the qu es t i on w hether the cl ai m s c on t ai ned i n the appl i ca t i on ar e m er i t ori ou s and fr ee of procedural bar. ” I d. a t9, 121 S . C t . a t364. P os t - c onvi c t i on m ot i ons a r e c ons i de r e d “ pr ope r l y f i l e d” even i f di sm i ss ed as succ es si ve. W ee kl eyv. M oo re , 24 4 F . 3d 87 4 (11 th C i r. 2001) . T he S upr e m e C ourtha s he l d, how e ve r , tha t“ [ w ] he n apos t - c onvi c t i on pe t i t i on i s unt i m e l y unde rs t a t e l a w , tha ti s the e nd of the m a tt e rf

orpurpos e s of § 2244( d) ( 2) . ” P a c e v. D i G ugl i e l m o, 544 U . S . 408, 414, 125 S . C t . 1807, 1812, 16 1 L . E d. 2d 66 9 (20 05 ) ( qu ot at i on and al t er at i on om i tt ed). I n S w e e tv. S e c ’ y , D e p’ tof C orr s . , w e a f

f i rm e d the di s m i s s a l of

a§ 2254 p e titio n a s tim e - b a rr e d , h o ld in g th a t a n u n tim e ly s ta te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n m o tio n is n o t “p r o p e r ly f

ile d ,” an d d o e s n o t to ll th e o n e - y e a rf e d e r a l lim ita tio n p e r io d e v e n if the s t a t e c ourtde ni e d the m ot i on on a l t e rna t i ve gr ounds . 467 F . 3d 1311, 1318 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). In thatca se , the st at e tri al courtdi sm i ss ed S w ee t ’ s m ot i on as

“ unt i m e l y a nd f

a c i a l l y i ns uf

f i c i e nt , ” a nd, a l t e rna t i ve l y , a s w i thoutm e r i ti n l i ghtof the F l or i daS upr e m e C ourt ’ s r e j e c t i on of

as i m i l a rc l a i m i n othe rc a s e s . I d. at1 3 1 3 -1 4 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i sm i ssed S w eet ’ s § 2 2 5 4 p et i t i o n as u n t i m el y, f i ndi ng tha thi s R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on di d nott ol l the f e de r a l l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. I d. a t1314. O n appe a l , c i t i ng A rtuz a nd P a c e , w e he l d tha tthe s t a t e c ourt ’ s a l t e rna t i ve f i ndi ng tha tS w e e t ’ s c l a i m w a s w i thoutm e r i tdi d notr e nde rthe R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on5

“p r o p e r ly f

ile d ” b e c au s e , “w h e n as ta te c o u rt u n a m b ig u o u s ly ru le s th a t a pos t - c onvi c t i on pe t i t i on i s unt i m e l y unde rs t a t e l a w , w e m us tr e s pe c ttha trul i ng a nd c onc l ude tha tthe pe t i t i on w a s not‘ pr ope r l y f i l e d’ f orthe purpos e s of § 2244( d) ( 2) , r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rthe s t a t e c ourta l s o r e a c he d the m e r i t s of one of th e c la im s .” I d . a t 1 3 1 8 . H e r e , the r e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha tthe l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od be ga n t o run on Janu ary 28, 20 03 , 90 days af t erthe F l ori da T hi rd D i stri ctC ou rtof A pp ea l deni ed O us l e y ’ s m ot i on f

orr e he a r i ng on O c t obe r30, 2002. S e e N i x v. S e c ’ y f orD e p’ tof C orr s . , 393 F . 3d 1235, 1236- 37 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( i ndi c a t i ng tha taF l or i da p r is o n e r ’s c o n v ic tio n w a s f in a l 9 0 d a y s a f

te rth e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u rt a f f irm e d h is c onvi c t i on, dur i ng w hi c h the pr i s one rc oul d ha ve s oughtc e rt i or a r i r e vi e w i n the U .S . S u p r e m e C o u rt) ; O u s le y v . S ta te , 8 2 9 S o .2 d 2 2 6 ( F la . 3 d D is t. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) . O n D ec em ber 17, 20 03 , O usl eyfi l ed a m ot i on for s t at e post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef , pu rs uantt o F l a. R . C ri m . P . 3. 85 0, w hi ch t ol l ed the l i m i t at i on s per i od un t i l O ct ob er 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , w h e n th e F lo r id aT h ir d D is tr ic t C o u rt o f A p p e a l is s u e d th e m a n d a te a f f i rm i ng i t s de ni a l . S e e O us l e y v. S t a t e , 884 S o. 2d 39 ( F l a . 3d D i s t . C t . A pp. 2004) . A tthe t i m e O us l e y f i l e d hi s R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on, 323 da y s of the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od ha d e l aps e d, l e a vi ng hi m 42 da y s i n w hi c h t o f i l e a28 U . S . C . § 2254 pet i t i on . A bsentanother properl y f i l ed t ol l i ng m ot i on , the l i m i t at i on s per i od w as6

s e tt o e x p i r e o n D e c e mb e r1 0 , 2 0 0 4 . O u s l e y d i d n o tf i l e th e i n s t a n t2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n u n til J u ly 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 . T he r e c or d f

urthe ri ndi c a t e s tha t , on N ove m be r25, 2004, O us l e y f i l e d a

“ M ot i on f

orR e l i e f f r om J udgm e nt ” pur s ua ntt o F l a . R . C i v. P . 1. 540( b) , w hi c h the s ta te tr ia l c o u rt c o n s tru e d a s as e c o n d R u le 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n f o rp o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e lie f . T he F l ori da T hi rd D i stri ctC ou rtof A pp ea l i ss ued the m andat e i n O usl ey ’ s di re ct appeal on N ov em ber 8, 20 02 . A l tho ug h O usl ey ’ s s ec on d R ul e 3. 85 0 m ot i on w as f i l e d w hi l e t i m e r e m a i ne d i n the one - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f orf i l i ng a§ 2254 p e titio n , a s s e t f

o rth in 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 , it w a s u n tim e ly u n d e rs ta te la w b e c au s e it w as fi l ed m ore than tw o years af t erthe F l ori da T hi rd D i stri ctC ou rtof A pp ea l is s u e d th e m a n d a te in h is d ir e c t ap p e a l. S e e F la .R .C r im .P . 3 .8 5 0 . A l though w e ha ve he l d tha ta n unt i m e l y s t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on m ot i on i s not

“ prop er l y f

i l ed, ” and do es no tt ol l the on e- ye arfe dera l l i m i t at i on peri od even w he r e , a s he r e , the s t a t e c ourtde ni e d the m ot i on on a l t e rna t i ve gr ounds , w e ha ve onl y appl i e d thi s hol di ng i n c a s e s w he r e the s t a t e c ourtm a de a n “ una m bi guous f in d in g ” th a t th e p e titio n e r ’s s ta te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n m o tio n w a s u n tim e ly . S w e e t, 46 7 F . 3d at13 18 . H er e, the re cord i nd i ca t es that , i n the fi rs tpartof i t s order denyi ng O usl ey ’ s s ec on d R ul e 3. 85 0 m ot i on , the st at e tri al courtfoun d thatO usl ey f a ile d to a lle g e a n y n e w g r o u n d s o rn e w ly - d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e . I n th e s e c o n d p a rt,7

the s t a t e c ourta l t e rna t i ve l y f ound tha tthe m ot i on w a s s uc c e s s i ve . D e s pi t e the a m bi gui ty i n the s t a t e c ourt ’ s or de rr e ga r di ng the t i m e l i ne s s of the R ul e 3. 850 m o tio n , h o w e v e r , w e n e e d n o t r e s o lv e th is is s u e . A s ap r e lim in a ry m a tte r , a lth o u g h th e s ta te a s s e rts th a t O u s le y f a ile d to a ddr e s s the i s s ue w e c e rt i f i e d f orappe a l i n hi s i ni t i a l br i e f , l i be r a l l y c ons true d, O us l e y ’ s a r gum e nt s c onc e rni ng the s t a t e c ourt ’ s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of hi s “ M ot i on f

or R el i ef fr om Judg m ent ” are re l evantt o d et erm i ni ng w hether thatm ot i on w as

“ prop er l y f

i l ed, ” and , thu s, ar e r el evantt o d et erm i ni ng w hether thatm ot i on t ol l ed the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f

orf i l i ng the i ns t a nt§ 2254 m ot i on. O us l e y ’ s s ol e a r gum e nt on appeal i s thatthe st at e tri al courti m prop er l y c on strued hi s “ M ot i on for R el i ef fr om Judg m ent ” a s ase cond R ul e 3. 85 0 m ot i on . O usl eyas se rt s thatthe st at e c ou rt shou l d h ave c on strued hi s m ot i on un der e i ther of tw o st atut ory f ra m ew orks: (1) a st at e pet i t i on for w ri tof habeas corpus, or (2) aR ul e 1. 54 0(b) m ot i on for r el i ef f r o m ju d g m e n t. F ir s t, a s to O u s le y ’s a s s e rtio n th a t th e s ta te c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e c o n s tru e d h is m o t i o n as a st at e p et i t i o n fo r w ri to f h ab eas co rp u s, a F l o ri d a p ri so n er m ay n o tu se a habeas pet i t i on t o att ac k h i s c on vi ct i on or se nt ence col l at er al l y. S ee L ei chtm an v . S i n g l et ary, 6 7 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 1 (F l a. 4 th D i st . C t . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); see al so F la .R .C r im .P . 3 .8 5 0 ( h ) ( p r o v id in g th a t ah ab e a s p e titio n b y ap r is o n e rau th o r iz e d to8

ap p ly f o rr e lie f p u r s u a n t to R u le 3 .8 5 0 w ill n o t b e e n te rta in e d if h e h a s f a ile d to ap p l y fo r rel i ef t o th e sen t en ci n g co u rto r th atco u rth as d en i ed h i m rel i ef, u n l ess R u le 3 .8 5 0 is in a d e q u a te o rin e f f e c tiv e to te s t th e le g a lityo f h is d e te n tio n ) . W h ile habeas re l i ef

re m ai ns avai l abl e on sever al other groun ds no tappl i cabl e t o thi s c as e, R ul e 3. 850 i s the pr i m a ry ve hi c l e f orpos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f . L e i c htm a n, 674 S o. 2d a t 8 9 1 - 9 2 & n .1 . A l though O us l e y a s s e rt s tha tF l or i dac ourt s ha ve he l d tha tas t a t e pe t i t i on f or w rit o f h ab ea s c o rp u s is th e p ro p erre m ed y f o r c h allen g in g an ap p ellate co u rt’s i ncon si st entappl i ca t i on of st at e l aw , the ca se s he c i t es i n sup po rtof hi s c l ai m ar e f a c tua l l y di s t i ngui s habl e . I n R om e r o v. S t a t e , the appe l l a nta nd hi s c ode f e nda nt f ile d s e p a r a te ap p e a ls , b u t a s s e rte d id e n tic a l c la im s . 6 3 7 S o .2 d 7 , 8 ( F la . 4 th D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ; s e e a ls o R au le r s o n v . S ta te , 7 2 4 S o .2 d 6 4 1 , 6 4 2 ( F la . 4 th D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) . A lth o u g h th e c la im s o n ap p e a l w e r e id e n tic a l, o n e p a n e l o f th e s ta te appel l at e c ou rtaf

fi rm ed R om er o’ s c on vi ct i on s w i tho utop i ni on , w hi l e al at erpanel r e v e r s e d h is c o d e f

e n d a n t’s c o n v ic tio n . S e e R o m e r o , 6 3 7 S o .2 d a t 8 . T h e ap p e lla te c ourtr e a s one d tha tthe pr ope rve hi c l e f ors e e ki ng r e l i e f

w a s ape t i t i on f

orw r i tof habe a s c orpus i n the appe l l a t e c ourt , be c aus e aR ul e 3. 850 m ot i on, w hi c h m us tbe f ile d in th e tr ia l c o u rt, w a s in a d e q u a te . I d .9

T he i nst antca se i s notanal og ou s t o the si tuat i on i n R om er o . O us l e y w a s not tr ie d w ith ac o d e f

e n d a n t. R a th e r , O u s le y a s s e rts th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is f a i l ur e - t o- c a l l - w i tne s s e s c l a i m i n hi s i ni t i a l R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on w a s i nc ons i s t e nt w i th as t a t e appe l l a t e c ourt ’ s s ubs e que ntde c i s i on i n J one s v. S t a t e , 934 S o. 2d 488 ( F l a . 3d D i s t . C t . A pp. 2004) , as e pa r a t e , unr e l a t e d c a s e tha tgr a nt e d ade f e nda nt r e l i e f on as i m i l a ri s s ue . S e e J one s , 934 S o. 2d a t488. M or e ove r , O us l e y ha s not pr e s e nt e d a ny e vi de nc e t o s how tha thi s pr e vi ous l y f i l e d R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on r e nde r e d tha tr e m e dy i ne f f e c t i ve . A c c or di ngl y , be c aus e habe a s r e l i e f m a y notbe u s e d a s as u b s titu te f

o rr e lie f u n d e rR u le 3 .8 5 0 , th e s ta te tr ia l c o u rt p r o p e r ly c ons true d O us l e y ’ s “ M ot i on f orR e l i e f f r om J udgm e nt ” a s as e c ond po st -c on vi ct i on m ot i on , and h i s c l ai m i s w i tho utm er i t . L ei chtm an, 67 4 S o. 2d at 8 9 2 . S e c ond, a s t o O us l e y ’ s c ont e nt i on tha thi s “ M ot i on f orR e l i e f f r om Judg m ent , ” i f a cc ept ed as no m i nal l y f i l ed un der R ul e 1. 54 0(b), w ou l d h ave t ol l ed the l i m i t at i on s per i od because i tw as t i m el y f i l ed w i thi n o ne ye arof the order a f f i rm i ng the de ni a l of

hi s i ni t i a l R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on, he c onc e de s tha tthe F l or i da S up re m e C ou rthas hel d thatF l a. R . C i v. P . 1. 54 0(b) do es no tappl y t o col l at er al c la im s a s s o c ia te d w ith c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n s , a n dh a s d ir e c te d s ta te tr ia l c o u rts to construe s uch fi l i ng s a s m ot i on s f or po st -c on vi ct i on re l i ef un der10

F l a. R . C ri m . P . 3 . 8 5 0 . S t ei n h o rst , 6 3 6 S o . 2 d at5 0 0 . W e h av e h el d th at“ [i ] ti s a fund am ent al pri nci pl e thatst at e c ou rt s are the fi nal arbi t er s of s t at e l aw , and federa l habe a s c ourt s s houl d nots e c ond- gue s s the m . ” C a l l a ha n v. C a m pbe l l , 427 F . 3d 8 9 7 , 9 3 2 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (q u o t at i o n o m i tt ed ). A cco rd i n g l y, th i s cl ai m al so fai l s. L a s t , a l though he c ha l l e nge s the s t a t e tr i a l c ourt ’ s ul t i m a t e c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of hi s “ M ot i on f

orR e l i e f f r om J udgm e nt , ” O us l e y doe s notc ont e s ta nd, i nde e d, appe a r s t o c onc e de the f a c ttha thi s m ot i on, c ons true d a s as e c ond R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on, w a s unt i m e l y unde rs t a t e l a w . T he r e f or e , “ tha ti s the e nd of

the m a tt e rf

or p u rp o ses o f § 2 2 4 4 (d )(2 ). ” P ace, 5 4 4 U . S . at4 1 4 , 1 2 5 S . C t . at1 8 1 2 . A cco rd i n g l y, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin f in d in g th a t O u s le y ’s u n tim e ly s e c o n d R u le 3. 85 0 m ot i on w as no t“ prop er l y f i l ed. ” T here fore , O usl ey ’ s “ M ot i on for R el i ef f r om J udgm e nt ” di d nott ol l the one - y e a rpe r i od f orf i l i ng hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on. I n l i g h to f

th e f o r e g o i n g , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f O u s e l y ’ s 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 p et i t i o n i s AF F I RME D.