FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 21, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 12501

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 2 0 8 - C V- T - 2 4 - MAP H O W A R D A L E X A N D E R , S R ., 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 , D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , S T A T E O F F L O R I D A , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

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

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 21, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

H o w a r d A le x a n d e r , S r ., a F lo r id a p r is o n e rw ith ap p o in te d c o u n s e l, ap p e a ls the di s m i s s a l of

hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on a s ba rr e d by the one - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od i n 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 1) . A f t e rr e vi e w a nd or a l a r gum e nt , w e c onc l ude th atA l ex an d er’ s F l o ri d a R u l e o f C ri m i n al P ro ced u re 3 . 8 0 0 (c) m o t i o n w as a req u est t o reduce a l egal se nt ence base d o n m er cyor l eni ency and d i d n otconst i tut e a n 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 p e r t i n e n tj u d g m e n tu n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) th a tt o l l e d th e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d . T h u s , we a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f A le x a n d e r ’s § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n a s u n tim e ly . I . B AC KG RO UN D A . C on vi c t i on s F i n alon Jan u ar y 30, 2001 In F l ori da st at e c ou rt , A l exander w as char ged w i th fi rs t -degree m urder, grand theftof a vehi cl e, and rob beryw i th a deadl y w eapo n. In M ay19 99 , a j ury c onvi c t e d A l e xa nde rof gr a nd the f

tof a ve hi c l e a nd the l e s s e rof f e ns e s of m ansl augh t erw i th a w eapo n and pet i ttheft . A l exander w as se nt ence d as ahabi tual f e lo n y o f f e n d e rto 2 5 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t o n th e m a n s la u g h te rc o n v ic tio n , a c onc urr e nt5- y e a rs e nt e nc e on the gr a nd the f tc onvi c t i on, a nd t i m e s e r ve d on the p e tit th e f t c o n v ic tio n . O n N o v e m b e r1 , 2 0 0 0 , th e F lo r id a ap p e lla te c o u r t a f f irm e d h is c o n v ic tio n s . A l e xa nde rv. S t a t e , 774 S o. 2d 697 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 2000) . A l e xa nde rha d 90See infra note 7 quoting thetextof F lorida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c ). 1 3 days or un t i l Ja nu ary 30, 20 01 , t o fi l e apet i t i on for c ert i orar i w i th the U ni t ed S t at es S upr e m e C our t , butdi d notdo s o. S e e S . C t . R . 13. 1. H i s j udgm e ntof c onvi c t i on be c a m e f i na l on J a nua ry 30, 2001. H i s § 2254 pe t i t i on thus ha d t o be f i l e d by Ja nu ary 30, 20 02 t o b e t i m el y, abse ntt ol l i ng . S ee 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d)(1). B . R u l e 3. 800( c ) M ot i on u n d e r F l or i d a L aw O n January 8, 20 01 , A l exander, pro se, fi l ed a m ot i on t o reduce hi s l egal se n ten ce p u rs u an t t o F lo rid a R u le o f C rim in al P ro ce d u re 3 .8 0 0 (c ). A lex an d er ’s 1 3. 800( c ) m ot i on s t a t e d tha t( 1) he w a s ve ry r e m or s e f ul f orw ha the ha d done , ( 2) he pray ed for the vi ct i m ’ s f am i l y, (3) he had l ea rned val uabl e l es sons abou tl i fe si nce in c a r c e r a tio n a n d h a d im p a c te d o th e r s th r o u g h s h a r in g th e G o s p e l o f J e s u s C h r is t, a n d ( 4 ) h is f

a m ily a n d c h ild r e n n e e d e d h im to r e tu rn a s s o o n a s p o s s ib le . A l exander’ s 3. 80 0(c) m ot i on as ked the st at e c ou rtt o revi ew the “ un controvert ed m itig a tin g f

a c ts ” in th e c a s e a n d h a v e m e r c y o n h im b y m itig a tin g h is s e n te n c e . A le x a n d e r ’s 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) w a s f ile d in th e s ta te c o u r t w h e r e h e w a s s e n te n c e d . O n January 26 , 20 01 , the cl erk o f the st at e tri al courtse ntA l exander a l ett er i ndi c a t i ng tha thi s 3. 800( c ) m ot i on w a s he a r d i n c our ta nd de ni e d on J a nua ry 24, 20 01 . T he cl erk att ac hed a copy of the courtca l endar re po rtthatcont ai ned an e ntry f orhi s 3. 800( c ) m ot i on w i th the w or ds “ de ni e d” a nd “ no one pr e s e nt ” be s i deAn order entere d o n a

Rul e3. 80 0( c ) m oti on

to re duc eor

modif y a sentenc eg enerally

is 2 no t a pp e ala ble , b ut i s su

bje c t toreview in a

n e xtraordin ary

c a seun der t

heF lorida

a pp e llate court’s c ertiora

ri jurisdiction. See By

rd v. State, 920 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla . Dist. Ct. App. 2006); see also Mathis v. S tate, 959 So. 2d 378 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (dismissi ngappeal of order denying Rule 3.800( c) motion). 4 i t . I n F e brua ry 2001, A l e xa nde rf i l e d a not i c e of

appe a l but , i n J ul y 2001, the F lo r id a ap p e lla te c o u r t d is m is s e d th e 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) ap p e a l f o rla c k o f

ju r is d ic tio n . A l exander v. S t at e, 79 3 S o. 2d 94 0 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 20 01 ). 2 I n F e brua ry 2001, A l e xa nde ra l s o f i l e d a pe t i t i on f

orc e r t i or a r i i n the F l or i da appel l at e c ou rt . O n M ay10 , 20 02 , the F l ori da appel l at e c ou rthel d thatA l exander w as ent i t l ed t o a rul i ng on the m er i t s of hi s 3. 80 0(c) m ot i on and, i f ahear i ng w as hel d, t o b e pre se ntfor the heari ng . A l exander v. S t at e, 81 6 S o. 2d 77 8, 78 0 (F l a. D i s t . C t . A pp. 2002) . A c c or di ngl y , the F l or i da appe l l a t e c our tgr a nt e d the pe t i t i on f orc e r t i or a r i , qua s he d the tr i a l c our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng A l e xa nde r ’ s 3. 800( c ) m ot i on, a n d r e m a n d e d to th e tr ia l c o u r t f o rc o n s id e r a tio n o f

h is 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) m o tio n o n its m er i t s. Id. O n M ay14 , 20 02 , up on re m and, the st at e tri al courtdeni ed A l e xa nde r ’ s 3. 800( c ) m ot i on. C . R u l e 3. 850 M ot i on u n d e r F l or i d a L aw O n F e b ru a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 , w h ile A le x a n d e r ’s 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) p r o c e e d in g s w e r e s till p e n d in g , A le x a n d e r , p r o s e , f ile d a m o tio n f

o rp o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e lie f p u r s u a n t to F l ori da R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 3. 85 0. O n N ov em ber 21, 20 02 , the st at e c ou rtUnder the “mailbox rule,” Alexander’ s § 2254 petition is deemed filed on the date it was 3 delivere d to prison authorities for mailing . See Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 1999). 5 de ni e d A l e xa nde r ’ s 3. 850 m ot i on. A l e xa nde rf i l e d a n unt i m e l y appe a l of the d e n ia l o f h is 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n , w h ic h th e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t s u a s p o n te d is m is s e d . A le x a n d e rv . S ta te , 8 4 8 S o . 2 d 3 1 5 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) . O n A ugus t12, 2003, A l e xa nde rf i l e d a pe t i t i on f

ora be l a t e d appe a l of

the deni al of hi s 3. 85 0 m ot i on . A ft eran evi dent i ary hea ri ng , the st at e app el l at e c ou rt grant ed the pet i t i on for abel at ed appeal . A l exander v. S t at e, 87 5 S o. 2d 59 8 (F l a. D i s t . C t . A pp. 2003) . O n J une 25, 2004, the s t a t e appe l l a t e c our ta f f i r m e d the d e n ia l o f h is 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n . A le x a n d e rv . S ta te , 8 8 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 8 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) . D . S e c t i on 2254 P e t i t i on O n January 10 , 20 05 , A l exander fi l ed hi s § 22 54 pet i t i on . T he di stri ctcourt 3 c onc l ude d tha tthe one - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od be ga n t o run on J a nua ry 30, 2001 ( w h e n A le x a n d e r ’s c o n v ic tio n s b e c a m e f in a l) a n d e x p ir e d o n J a n u a ry 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd et erm i n ed th atA l ex an d er’ s 3 . 8 0 0 (c) m o t i o n d i d n o to p erat e as a v e h ic le f o rc o lla te r a l r e v ie w o f

th e le g a lity o f

th e p e r tin e n t ju d g m e n t, b u t o n ly a l l ow e d a s t a t e s e nt e nc i ng c our tt o r e duc e a l e ga l s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a pr a y e rf or m er cyor l eni ency . T hu s, the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatA l exander’ s 3. 80 0(c)The district cour t’s COA order

also stated that Alexander ’s notice of appeal was 4 untimely . The district cour t entere d its judgment dismissing Alexander’ s § 2254 petition on March 2 4, 20 06 . A le xan der h a d 3 0 days tofi lea tim e ly no tic eof a pp e al. S e eF e d. R. A

pp . P. 4( a)( 1) (A). B e c a

us ethi s 3 0- da

y peri od e xpire d o n Sunday , April 2 3, 20 06 , A le xan der h a d unti l the next day

– April 24, 2006 – to file a timely notice of a

ppeal. SeeFe d. R. App. P. 26(a)(3) . Alexander’s noticeof appe al was signed and dated April 24, 2006. Ac cording ly , Alexander’s no tic eof a pp e al w a s time ly, a

nd wehavejurisdic tio n o ver t hisa pp e al. This Court reviews denovo the district court’s determination that a petition for habea s 5 corpus relief w as time-bar red under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See Stee d v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000). 6 m ot i on di d n otconst i tut e a n app l i ca t i on for post -c on vi ct i on or other c ol l at er al r e vi e w unde r§ 2244( d) ( 2) a nd di d nott ol l . B e c a us e the one - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od e xpi r e d on J a nua ry 30, 2002, be f or e A l e xa nde rf

i l e d hi s t ol l i ng 3. 850 m ot i on on F e brua ry 27, 2002, the di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d A l e xa nde r ’ s § 2254 p et i t i o n as u n t i m el y. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed A l exander a c ert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty (“ C O A ”) . 4 T h is C o u r t th e n g r a n te d A le x a n d e ra C O A o n th e s o le is s u e o f: W h e th e rth e d i s tr i c tc o u r tp r o p e r l y di s m i s s e d ap p e l l a n t ’ s 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 p e t i t i o n a s unt i m e l y i n l i g h to f h i s p r o p e r l y f

i l e d Fl a . R. Cr i m. P. 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) m o tio n f

o rr e d u c tio n o f

s e n te n c e [ .] 5 I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he A nt i t errori sm and E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (“ A E D P A ”) , P ub. L . N o. 104- 132, 110 S t a t . 1214 ( 1996) , e s t abl i s he s a one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

orf i l i ng § 2254 pe t i t i ons , w hi c h be gi ns t o run f ol l ow i ng, i nt e ra l i a , the d a te o n w h ic h th e p e titio n e r ’s ju d g m e n t b e c o m e s f in a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) .7

S ec t i on 22 44 (d)( 2) prov i des that“ [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 r t 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 lim ita tio n u n d e rth is s u b s e c tio n .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . I t is n o t d is p u te d th a t A le x a n d e r ’s § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n w a s u n tim e ly if h is 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) m o tio n is n o t a to llin g m o tio n . T h e o n e - y e a rlim ita tio n s p e r io d b e g a n to run w he n A l e xa nde r ’ s c onvi c t i on be c a m e f i na l on J a nua ry 30, 2001, a f t e rthe 90- day per i od t o p et i t i on the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rtfor c ert i orar i expi re d. S ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ; B o n d v . M o o r e , 3 0 9 F .3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A bs e ntt ol l i ng, the one - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od w oul d ha ve e xpi r e d on J a nua ry 30, 2 0 0 2 , w h ic h w a s b e f

o r e A le x a n d e rf

ile d h is 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n o n F e b ru a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 . W h ile a 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n is a to llin g m o tio n u n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) , it c o u ld n o t to ll the one - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od i f tha tpe r i od a l r e a dy ha d e xpi r e d. W e bs t e rv. M o o r e , 1 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “A s ta te - c o u r t p e titio n . . . th a t is f i l e d f ol l ow i ng the e xpi r a t i on of the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od c a nnott ol l tha tpe r i od because there i s no p er i od re m ai ni ng t o b e t ol l ed. ”) . T hu s, i f the on e- ye ar l i m i t at i on s per i od w as no tt ol l ed by A l exander’ s 3. 80 0(c) m ot i on fi l ed on Ja nu ary 8, 2001, hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on w a s unt i m e l y f i l e d on J a nua ry 10, 2005. T he part i es al so do no tdi sput e thatA l exander’ s 3. 80 0(c) m ot i on w as (1) a nRul e3. 80 0( c ), e ntitle d “ Re du c tio n a nd Mo dif ic atio n, ”prov ide s: 6 A cour t may reduc e or modify . . . a leg al sentenc e imposed by it within 60 days after the impositi on, or within 60 days after rec ei p t b y the cour

t of a mandate issued by the appe llate c ourt on aff irmanceof the judgment and/or sentence on a n orig inal appeal, or within 60 days after rec eipt by the court of a cer tified copy

of an order of the appe llate cour

t dismi ssing an orig inal appeal f rom the judgment and/or sentence, or, if fur ther a ppellate review is sought in a h i gh er court or in successively higher courts, within 60 days after the highest st ate or federal c ourt to which a timely appeal has been taken under authority of law, or in which a petition for cer tiorari has be en timely filed under authority

of law, ha s entere d an order of a ffirma nce or an order dismiss in g th e appeal and/or denying c ertiora

ri. This subdivisi on shall not be a pp lic a bleto t ho sec a se s in

whic h th ede ath s entenc eis impo se d o r t ho se cases in which the trial judge h as imposed the minimummandatory sentenc e or ha s no sentenc ing disc retion. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c). A lexander filed his 3.800(c ) motion within 60 days of issuanceof the November

29, 2000 mandate f

rom the F lorida District Court of Appe al af firminghis convictions on direc t appeal. The par ties do not dispute on appeal that Ale x ander ’s 3.800(c ) motion was “properly filed.” 8 “ appl i c a t i on, ” ( 2) “ pr ope r l y f i l e d” i n s t a t e c our t , a nd ( 3) “ pe ndi ng” dur i ng the rel ev an tt i m e p eri o d fo r w h i ch A l ex an d er seek s t o l l i n g . T h u s, w e n eed n o tad d ress th o se as p ec ts o f § 2 2 4 4 (d )( 2 ). In stea d , th e s o le q u es ti o n is w h eth erA lex an d er ’s 3. 80 0(c) m ot i on w as an appl i ca t i on “ for S t at e post -c on vi ct i on or other c ol l at er al rev i ew w i th resp ectt o th e p ert i n en tj u d g m en t ” u n d er § 2 2 4 4 (d )(2 ). W e fi rst e xa m i ne R ul e 3. 800( c ) a nd the n tw o of ourr e c e ntde c i s i ons r e ga r di ng t ol l i ng m o tio n s u n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . A . R u l e 3. 80 0(c) R ul e 3. 80 0(c) st at es that“ [a ] courtm ayre du ce or m od i fy. . . a l egal s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y it . . . .” F la . R . C r im . P . 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W h ile 6 R u le 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) d o e s n o t e n u m e r a te a n y b a s is f o rw h ic h a p e titio n e rm a y s e e k toRul e3. 80 0( a), e ntitle d “ Cor re c tio n, ”prov ide s th at: 7 A court may

at any time corre ct an illeg al sentenc e imposed by it, or an incorrect calculation made by i t i n a sentencingscore sheet, or a sentenc e that does not grant proper cre dit for time serve d when it is aff irmatively

allege d th at the cour

t rec ords demonstrate on the ir fac e an entitlement to that relief . . . . Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a). 9 r e duc e orm odi f

y hi s s e nt e nc e , i tpr e s uppos e s tha tthe s e nt e nc e the c our ti s be i ng a s ke d t o r e duc e orm odi f y i s “ a l e ga l s e nt e nc e . ” S e e i d. I n c ontr a s t , c ha l l e nge s of l e ga l e rr ori n a s e nt e nc e a r e r a i s e d unde rothe rpr ovi s i ons of the F l or i da R ul e s of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e . R ul e 3. 800( a ) a l l ow s a pe t i t i one rt o r e que s tthe s e nt e nc i ng c our tt o “ c orr e c ta n i l l e ga l s e nt e nc e ” a ta ny t i m e . F l a . R . C r i m . P . 3. 800( a ) . A l s o, 7 a p e titio n e rm a y s e e k r e lie f f r o m ju d g m e n t o rr e le a s e f r o m c u s to d y u n d e rR u le 3. 850 be c a us e , i nt e ra l i a , a s e nt e nc e ( 1) w a s i m pos e d i n vi ol a t i on of the C ons t i tut i on orl a w s of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s orF l or i da , ( 2) e xc e e de d the m a xi m um a u th o r i z e d b y l a w , o r( 3 ) i s o th e rw i s e s u b j e c tt o c o l l a t e r a l a tt a c k . Fl a . R. Cr i m. P. 3 .8 5 0 ( a ) . R ul e s 3. 800( a ) a nd 3. 850 thus e xpl i c i t l y pr ovi de a pr oc e dur e f orr a i s i ng a l e ga l c ha l l e nge t o a s e nt e nc e . O n the othe rha nd, R ul e 3. 800( c ) a s s um e s tha tthe sen t en ce so u g h tt o b e m o d i fi ed o r red u ced i s l eg al an d fu n ct i o n s effecti v el y as a pr oc e dur e f

ora pe t i t i one rt o r e que s tl e ni e nc y f r om the s e nt e nc i ng c our tba s e d on m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . S e e W illia m s v . S ta te , 9 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 2 5 ( F la . D is t. C t . A pp . 20 05 ); S ug gs v. S t at e, 35 8 S o. 2d 89 7, 89 7 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 78 ).The phra se “post-c onviction or other c ollateral review ” is not defined within AEDPA. 8 O.C.G.A. § 17-10- 6 provided that, in any casein which a sentenceof 12 or moreyear s 9 wa s im po se d, e xcept de ath p e nalty c a se s a nd seri ou s v iol ent f

e lonie s: th ed e f e n d ants h a l l h av eth eri ghtt o h av eth es ent en c eo r s ent en c e s re v i ew e d

b y a panel of threesuperior c ourt judge s to determine whether the sentenc e or sentence s so imposed a

re excessively harsh. Consideration shall be g iven in the review to the natureof the c rime for which the de fendant has been convicted a nd to the defendant’s prior criminal rec ord. . . . O.C.G.A. § 17-10- 6(a) . This statute was repeale d in 2007. See id. § 17-10-6 (repe aled by 2007 Georg ia L aws Ac t 327 (H.B . 197)). 10 W e now re vi ew ou r pre ce dentabou tt ol l i ng m ot i on s und er§ 2 24 4(d)(2). B . O u r P re ce d en t i n B ri d ges an d S i b l ey In B ri dg es v. John son, 28 4 F . 3d 12 01 (11th C i r. 20 02 ), thi s C ou rtconcl ud ed tha ta n appl i c a t i on f

ors e nt e nc e r e vi e w unde rG e or gi a ’ s pr oc e dur e w a s nota t ol l i ng m o tio n u n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . 2 8 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 4 . T h e G e o r g ia p r o c e d u r e in 8 O . C . G . A . § 1 7-10 -6, w hi ch w as se para t e f rom the di re ctappeal and st at e habeas pr oc e dur e s , a l l ow e d pr i s one r s t o s e e k r e vi e w of the i rs e nt e nc e s by a thr e e - j udge pa ne l w hi c h w oul d de t e r m i ne w he the ra s e nt e nc e w a s “ e xc e s s i ve l y ha r s h” i n l i ght o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s c r im e a n d p r io rc r im in a l r e c o r d . I d . a t 1 2 0 3 . 9 T hi s C our ti n B r i dge s e m pha s i z e d tha tthe goa l s of A E D P A ’ s pr ovi s i ons i ncl ud e “ (1) e nsuri ng ‘ thatthe st at e c ou rt s have the op po rtun i ty f ul l y t o con si der f e d e r a l- la w c h a lle n g e s to a s ta te c u s to d ia l ju d g m e n t b e f o r e th e lo w e rf

e d e r a l c o u r ts m a y e nt e r t a i n a c ol l a t e r a l a tt a c k upon tha tj udgm e nt , ’ a nd ( 2) s e r vi ng ‘ the w e l l - r e c ogni z e d i nt e r e s ti n the f i na l i ty of s t a t e c our tj udgm e nt s . ’ ” I d. a t120311

( quot i ng D unc a n v. W a l ke r , 533 U . S . 167, 178- 79, 121 S . C t . 2120, 2127- 28 ( 2001) ) . T hi s C our tf

ur the rnot e d tha t“ ‘ [ t ] he t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on of § 2244( d) ( 2) ba l a nc e s the i nt e r e s t s s e r ve d by the e xha us t i on r e qui r e m e nta nd the l i m i t a t i on p e r io d .’” I d . ( q u o tin g W a lk e r , 5 3 3 U .S . a t 1 7 9 , 1 2 1 S . C t. a t 2 1 2 8 ) . R ea di ng § 1 7-10 -6 i n l i gh tof A E D P A ’ s goal s, thi s C ou rti n B ri dg es c o n c lu d e d th a t th e G e o r g ia s e n te n c e r e v ie w p r o c e d u r e d id n o t c o n s titu te s ta te p o s tc onvi c t i on r e l i e f

unde r§ 2244( d) ( 2) “ be c a us e i tdoe s notpr om ot e e xha us t i on by gi vi ng st at e c ou rt s the op po rtun i ty t o con si der f eder al -l aw chal l enges t o st at e c ou rt j udgm e nt s , a nd i tdoe s notpr om ot e f i na l i ty of s t a t e c our tj udgm e nt s by r e duc i ng the t i m e i n w hi ch fe dera l re vi ew i s s ou gh t . ” I d. T he G eorgi a s ent ence re vi ew p r o c e d u r e w a s “m e r e ly a m e a n s f o rc o m p a r in g s e n te n c e s to e n s u r e a c c u r a c y .” I d . T h is C o u r t a g r e e d w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o b s e r v a tio n th a t th e “s e n te n c e r e v ie w is nota n a tt a c k on the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty orl e ga l c orr e c tne s s of a s e nt e nc e orj udgm e nt i n c ontr a s tt o a di r e c tappe a l orhabe a s a c t i on. ” I d. a t1204 ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt ed). T hu s, an appl i ca t i on for s ent ence re vi ew i n G eorgi a und er§ 1 7-10 -6 w as nota t ol l i ng m ot i on unde r§ 2244( d) ( 2) . I d. T hi s C ou rtfurther e xp l ored the l i m i t s of § 22 44 (d)( 2) i n S i bl eyv. C ul l i ver, 37 7 F . 3d 11 96 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T he do cum entati ss ue i n S i bl eyw as a “ N ot i ce ” se ntby the pet i t i on er s t o the A l abam a S up re m e C ou rtthati nform ed thatcourtthat12

th e p e titio n e r s h a d s e n t d o c u m e n ts ap p e a lin g th e irc o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s to m e m be r s of

C ongr e s s . I d. a t1198- 99. I n c onc l udi ng tha tthe “ N ot i c e ” di d not c o n s titu te “a n ap p lic a tio n f o rS ta te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n o ro th e rc o lla te r a l r e v ie w ,” th is C o u r t e x p la in e d th a t § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) r e q u ir e s th a t s u c h a n ap p lic a tio n “c o n ta in s om e thi ng va gue l y appr oa c hi ng l e gi t i m a t e , r e l e va nt , c ohe r e ntl e ga l a na l y s i s . ” I d. a t1200. T hi s C our ti n S i bl e y f ur the rs t a t e d tha t“ w he r e a pe t i t i one rf a i l s t o i nc l ude any m ea ni ng ful fe dera l or st at e l egal anal ys i s, w e nee d n otconsi der hi s f i l i ng an appl i ca t i on for s t at e post -c on vi ct i on re vi ew . ” I d. B ec ause the “ N ot i ce ” w as no tan appl i ca t i on for S t at e post -c on vi ct i on or other c ol l at er al re vi ew (a nd , furtherm ore, w as no t“ prop er l y f

i l ed”) , thi s C ou rtconcl ud ed thatthe pet i t i on er s’ “ N ot i ce ” w as n o t a to llin g m o tio n . S e e id . a t 1 2 0 1 - 0 4 . C. R u l e 3. 800( c ) M ot i on i s n ot a T ol l i n g M ot i on B a s e d on the l a ngua ge of § 2244( d) ( 2) a nd ourpr i orpr e c e de nti nt e rpr e t i ng § 2 24 4(d)(2), w e c on cl ud e thatA l exander’ s 3. 80 0(c) m ot i on w as no tan

“ 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 p e r tin e n t ju d g m e n t” u n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) a n d th u s d id n o t to ll th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d . A s w e n o te d in S ib le y , a to llin g m o tio n u n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) “m u s t c o n ta in som ethi ng vagu el y app roac hi ng l egi t i m at e, re l evant , coherentl egal anal ys i s. ” S i bl ey , 37 7 F . 3d at12 00 . A l exander’ s 3. 80 0(c) m ot i on cont ai ned n o such l egalIn Ford, this Court concluded, base d on an interpretation of the phrase “ judgment or 10 claim” in § 2244(d) (2), that a n application for

state post-convic tion or other collateral review would toll “reg ardle ss of whether the ba sis of the attac k is grounded in fe deral or state law.” Ford, 296 F.3d at 1038. 13 an alys is. In h is 3 .8 0 0 (c ) m o ti o n , A lex an d erex p re ss ed re m o rs e f o r th e v icti m ’s fa m i l y, i nd i ca t ed thatpri son h ad changed h i m and thathe w as shar i ng the G ospel o f J e s u s C h r is t w ith o th e r s , a n d n o te d th a t h is f a m ily a n d c h ild r e n n e e d e d h im . A l e xa nde rc onc l ude d hi s 3. 800( c ) m ot i on by a s ki ng the c our tt o ha ve m e r c y on hi m and m i t i gat e hi s s ent ence . E ven l i bera l l y r ea d, A l exander’ s pro se 3. 80 0(c) m ot i on w as on l y apl eafor l eni ency , no t“ an att ac k o n the const i tut i on al i ty or l egal c orr e c tne s s of

a s e nt e nc e . ” S e e B r i dge s , 284 F . 3d a t1204 ( quot a t i on m a r ks o m i tt ed ). L i k e th e G eo rg i a sen t en ci n g rev i ew p ro ced u re ad d ressed i n B ri d g es, R u le 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) d o e s n o t a d v a n c e A E D P A ’s in te r e s ts in a llo w in g s ta te c o u r ts a f u ll op po rtun i ty t o con si der f eder al -l aw chal l enges or i n the fi nal i ty of s t at e c ou rt ju d g m e n ts . W e d is a g r e e w ith A le x a n d e r ’s c o n te n tio n th a t o u rc o n c lu s io n h e r e is i ncon si st entw i th o ur deci si on i n F ord v . M oo re , 29 6 F . 3d 10 35 (11th C i r. 20 02 ), re gardi ng R ul e 3. 80 0(a) . A s a n i ni t i al m att er , the i ss ue i n F ord w as w hether a m ot i on m ustcont ai n a fe dera l -l aw ar gu m enti n o rdert o t ol l , no tw hether a3. 80 0(a) m o tio n is a to llin g m o tio n . U n lik e h e r e , th e S ta te c o n c e d e d in F o r d th a t a R u le 10 3. 80 0(a) m ot i on , i n g ener al , w as an “ appl i ca t i on for S t at e post -c on vi ct i on or otherBoth pa rties on appe al here agreethat the petitioner’s motion in Ford w as filed under 11 Rule 3.800(a) . The de scription in Ford of the petitioner’s motion as a “motion to correc t an illegal sentence ” and thesubstantive leg al challeng e raised there in indicates that it was filed under Rule 3.800( a). SeeFord, 296 F.3d at 1036. 14 col l at er al re vi ew ” und er§ 2 24 4(d)(2), so thi s C ou rtdi d n otsquare l y a dd re ss that is s u e . F o r d , 2 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 7 . M o re i m p o rt an t l y, F o rd ad d ressed o n l y R u l e 3 . 8 0 0 (a), an d th ere i s a 11 s ig n if ic a n t d if f e r e n c e in th e te x t o f

3 .8 0 0 ( a ) a n d 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) . R u le 3 .8 0 0 ( a ) e x p lic itly p r o v id e s f

o ra c o u r t to “c o rr e c t a n ille g a l s e n te n c e ,” w h e r e a s R u le 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) o n ly a l l o w s a c o u r tt o “ r e d u c e o rmo d i f y . . . a l e g a l s e n t e n c e . ” Fl a . R. Cr i m. P. 3. 80 0(a) , (c ). W hi l e R ul e 3. 80 0(a) al so al l ow s f or corr ec t i on of a s ent ence base d on an i ncorrec tca l cul at i on i n a se nt enci ng sc ores heetor the fa i l ure t o g ra ntprop er c r e di tf ort i m e s e r ve d, s e e F l a . R . C r i m . P . 3. 800( a ) , the pe t i t i one ri n F or d di d not ra ise e ith ero f th o se ch allen g es in h is 3 .8 0 0 (a ) m o ti o n . In stea d , p etit io n er ’s 3 .8 0 0 ( a ) m o tio n c h a lle n g e d th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a l b e c a u s e it exce eded st atut ory l i m i t at i on s. S ee F ord, 29 6 F . 3d at10 36 . T o the ext entthat F or d a dopt e d the S t a t e ’ s c onc e s s i on tha ta 3. 800( a ) m ot i on w a s at ol l i ng m ot i on, F ord est abl i shed on l y thatthe 3. 80 0(a) m ot i on ati ss ue, w hi ch ra i se d a l egal chal l enge t o a se nt ence , w as a t ol l i ng m ot i on , no tthatal l 3. 80 0(a) m ot i on s a re t ol l i ng m ot i ons . T hus , the hol di ng i n F or d tha ta 3. 800( a ) m ot i on tha tr a i s e d a l e ga l c ha l l e nge t o a s e nt e nc e w a s a t ol l i ng m ot i on i s c ons i s t e ntw i th ourc onc l us i onIn concludingthat a state motion ca n toll the lim itations period even if does not raisea 12 federal c laim, the Ford Court also stated that “[a] state collateral proce edingbased solely on state -l aw i ssu e s ma

y avo id t hene e d f or fe deral re lie f, and

a tol lingrulepermitspriso nersto pursue suc h theories in state c ourt without jeopardizing their ability to raise the f

ederal constitutional iss ues later in federal c ourt, if that prove s to be nec essar y .” F ord, 296 F .3d at 1040. The F ord petitioner challeng ed his sentenc e as illeg al and unc onstitut ional under statelaw and this languag e contemplates that a “ state-law ” challeng e could e liminate the need f or a f uture claim under

federal law . In contra st, Rule 3.800(c) doe s not allow for a petitioner to raiseany leg al challeng e, state or

federal, that c ould obviate the nee d for f ederal re lief. But seeRobinson v. Golder, 443 F.3d 718, 720- 21 (10th Cir.) (c oncludingColorado 13 Rul eof Criminal Proc e dure35 (b ) m oti on fo r re duc tio n o f s entenc ewa s a tol lingmotion), c e rt . denie d, __

_ U .S. __ _, 12 7 S. Ct. 16 6 ( 20 06 ); Ho wa rd v. Ul iba rri, 4 57 F .3 d 1 14 6, 11 48 -5 0 ( 10 th Cir. 2006) (followingRobinson to conclude New Mexi co Rule of Criminal Proce dure 5- 801 motion for modification of sentence w as a tollingmotion). 15 he r e tha tA l e xa nde r ’ s 3. 800( c ) m ot i on – w hi c h r a i s e d no c ha l l e nge of l e ga l e rr or w ha t s oe ve r– i s nota t ol l i ng m ot i on. 12 D . O th er C i rc u i ts B oth the T hi rd and F ou rth C i rc ui t s have c on cl ud ed thatm ot i on s f i l ed un der s ta te ru le s s im ila rto R u le 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) a r e n o t to llin g m o tio n s u n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . H a r tm a nn v. C a rr ol l , 492 F . 3d 478, 481- 84 ( 3r d C i r . 2007) , pe t i t i on f orc e r t . f i l e d, 76 U . S . L . W . 3200 ( U . S . O c t . 3, 2007) ( N o. 07- 478) ; W a l kow i a k v. H a i ne s , 272 F . 3d 23 4, 23 7-39 (4th C i r. 20 01 ). 13 I n H a r tm a nn, the T hi r d C i r c ui ta ddr e s s e d w he the ra m ot i on f orr e duc t i on of s e n te n c e u n d e rD e la w a r e S u p e r io rC o u r t C r im in a l R u le 3 5 ( b ) w a s a to llin g m o tio n . A ft ercontra st i ng the l angu age of R ul e 35(b) w i th o ther D el aw ar e rul es that al l ow ed pet i t i on er s t o rai se l egal chal l enges, the T hi rd C i rc ui tconcl ud ed that“ [a ]16

R u le 3 5 ( b ) m o tio n is a p le a f o rle n ie n c y , d ir e c te d to w a r d th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t, w hi ch se eks di sc re t i on ary r el i ef base d o n m er cyand g ra ce , ra ther than o n the l aw . ” H artm ann, 49 2 F . 3d at48 1. T he pet i t i on er ’ s R ul e 35(b) m ot i on , w hi ch ra i se d thi r t e e n “ m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s , ” onl y s ought“ a di s c r e t i ona ry e xe r c i s e of l eni ency by the se nt enci ng j ud ge. ” I d. at48 2. A ft erre vi ew i ng the pri nci pl es soug htt o b e s erved b y A E D P A , the T hi rd C i rc ui tconcl ud ed that“ t ol l i ng for a l eni ency pet i t i on do es no tadvance tho se go al s. ” I d. at48 4. T he H artm ann C ou rt e xpl a i ne d tha t“ [ o] bvi ous l y , w he n a pr i s one ri n s t a t e c us t ody opt s t o f i l e a m ot i on for di sc re t i on ary l eni ency , the st at e i s notbei ng as ked t o correc terrors of l egal m om e nt . W ha t e ve ri nt e r e s tthe s t a t e ha s i n de c i di ng the m ot i on, i t s i nt e r e s ti s not one i n c orr e c t i ng e rr or s be f or e the f e de r a l c our t s a s s um e j ur i s di c t i on. ” I d. a t483. T h u s , th e T h ir d C ir c u it c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p e titio n e r ’s R u le 3 5 ( b ) m o tio n w a s n o t a t ol l i ng m ot i on. I d. a t484. T he F ou rth C i rc ui tre ac hed a si m i l arconcl usi on i n add re ss i ng w hether a m ot i on for r educt i on of se nt ence un der W es tV i rgi ni a R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 35 (b) w as a t ol l i ng m ot i on . In det erm i ni ng thata R ul e 35(b) m ot i on do es no tse ek

“ c ol l a t e r a l ” r e vi e w , the F our th C i r c ui tnot e d tha t“ c ol l a t e r a l ” pr oc e e di ngs

“ typi ca l l y e nt ai l a c hal l enge t o the l egal i ty of the ea rl i erproceedi ng or j ud gm ent . ” W a lk o w ia k , 2 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 3 8 . H o w e v e r , a R u le 3 5 ( b ) m o tio n , u n lik e a m o tio n toTh eF ourt h Circuit alsoc on c lude d th at a

Rul e35 (b ) p ro c e e dingwa s n ot “ c oll ateral” 14 beca use a Rule 35(b) motion is heard by the same judg e that sentenced thedefendant and beca use Rule 35(b) did not contain a provision addre ssing the preclusive e ffe ct to be af forde d the orig inal sentenc ing procee ding. SeeWalkowiak, 272 F.3d at 237-38. 17 “ c orr e c ta n i l l e ga l s e nt e nc e ” unde rW e s tV i r gi ni a R ul e 35( a ) , doe s notr a i s e a ny c h a lle n g e o f

e rr o rb y th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t, m u c h le s s le g a l e rr o r . I d . “T h e o n ly i s s ue be f or e the c our ton a R ul e 35( b) m ot i on i s w he the rthe de f e nda nt , a l though s e n t e n c e d i n c o n f

o r mi ty w i th ap p l i c ab l e l a w s , n e v e r th e l e s s p r e s e n t s s o me c o m p e llin g n o n - le g a l ju s tif ic a tio n th a t w a rr a n ts m e r c y .” I d . T h e p e titio n e r ’s R u le 35( b) m ot i on w a s c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s r e a di ng of the rul e i n tha ti tonl y s ought

“ m e r c y f r om the c our t , on the ba s i s of a va r i e ty of

a s s e r t e d m i t i ga t i ng ci rc um st ance s. ” I d. T hu s, because aR ul e 35(b) m ot i on “ do es no tent ai l a l egal c h a lle n g e to th e o r ig in a l s e n te n c e ,” th e F o u r th C ir c u it c o n c lu d e d th a t it w a s n o t a to llin g m o tio n . I d . a t 2 3 9 . 14 T h e a n a l y s e s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s b y th e T h i r d a n d F o u r th C i r c u i t s i n th e s e two de c i s i ons a r e c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s c i r c ui t ’ s B r i dge s de c i s i on a nd ourc onc l us i on here . I I I . CONCL US I ON I n s u m , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a 3 .8 0 0 ( c ) m o tio n is n o t a n “ap p lic a tio n f o rS ta te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n o ro th e rc o lla te r a l r e v ie w w ith r e s p e c t to th e p e r tin e n t ju d g m e n t” u n d er§ 2 2 4 4 (d )( 2 ) th at to ll s A E D P A ’s o n e- ye arli m it atio n s p er io d . A lex an d er ’s18

one - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od w a s nott ol l e d w hi l e hi s 3. 800( c ) m ot i on w a s pe ndi ng, a n d it e x p ir e d o n J a n u a ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 b e f o r e A le x a n d e rf

ile d a to llin g 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n . T hu s, w e a ff

i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of A l exander’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on as unt i m e l y f

i l e d. AF F I RME D.