FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APR 3, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble David G. Trag er, United States District Judg e for the Easter

n District of New * York, sitting by

designation. [ 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. 05- 14992

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 3 0 4 6 - C V- P AS G A R Y L . R O B B I N S , 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 , 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 r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 3, 2007) B ef ore B A R K E T T and K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and T R A G E R , D i stri ct * Judg e. P E R C U R I A M:Th eAE DPAprov ide s, in re le va nt p art , th at: 1 (d)( 1) A 1-year

period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habea s corpus by

a per son in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State c ourt. The limitation period shall run from the latest of -- (A) thedate on whic h the judgment beca me final by

the conc lusion of direc t reviewor the e xpiration of the time for seekingsuch review; . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 2 A ppe l l a ntG a r y L . R obbi ns , a F l or i da pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of hi s appl i c a t i on f

ora w r i tof

ha be a s c orpus , br ought pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254, a s t i m e - ba r r e d unde rthe one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons unde rthe A nt i t e r r or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996 ( A E D P A ) , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . W e g r a n te d a c e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a la b ility a s to the fol l ow i ng i ss ue: W h e r e a h a b e a s p e titio n e r , w h o w a s r e s e n te n c e d a f te rth e a f f ir m a n c e o f

h is co n v i ct i o n s o n d i rectap p eal , ch al l en g es o n l y th e o ri g i n al tri al p ro ceed i n g s, w he the rthe tr i gge r i ng da t e f orA E D P A ’ s one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons , 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) , i s m e a s ur e d f r om the da t e the r e s e nt e nc i ng j u d g me n tb e c a me f

i n a l o rf r o m th e d a t e th e o r i g i n a l c o n v i c t i o n b e c a me f i n a l ? T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y r ec og ni ze d t hatthe A E D P A es t abl i shes a oneye arl i m i t at i on s per i od , w hi ch go verns thi s c as e. R ob bi ns w as there fore re qu i re d 1 t o f i l e hi s ha be a s pe t i t i on notm or e tha n one y e a rf r om “ the da t e on w hi c h the j u d g me n tb e c a me f

i n a l b y th e c o n c l u s i o n o f d i r e c tr e v i e w . ” 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a lte r e d , h o w e v e r , in3

de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe c onvi c t i on ha d be c om e f i na l f orthe purpos e s of § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) w h e n it w a s a f f ir m e d o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. T he pl a i n m e a ni ng of

the s t a tut e f

or e c l os e s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the st atut e, as the S t at e now forthri gh t l y a ckno w l edges. A l tho ug h i n t he di stri ct c our tthe S t a t e a r gue d t o the c ontr a r y , i tnow a gr e e s w i th R obbi ns tha tthe j ud gm entof conv i ct i on w as no tfi nal un t i l bo th t he conv i ct i on and t he se nt ence w e r e a f f i r m e d on di r e c tappe a l . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) ( j udgm e nt becom es fi nal by “ the concl usi on of di re ctre vi ew ”) . T here fore , the on e- ye ar l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od be ga n t o run on D e c e m be r11, 2001— ni ne ty ( 90) da y s a f t e rthe appel l at e c ou rtaf

fi rm ed the se nt ence i m po se d atre se nt enci ng , the t i m e i n w hi ch R o b b in s c o u ld h a v e s o u g h t c e r tio r a r i r e v ie w f r o m th e U .S . S u p r e m e C o u r t o f b o th hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e . N i x v. S e c ’ y f orD e p’ tof

C or r . , 393 F . 3d 1235, 1236- 3 7 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( Fl o r i d a p r i s o n e r ’ s c o n v i c t i o n b e c a me “ f i n a l ” f o rA ED PA p u rp o s e s o n d a t e th a t9 0 - d a y p e r i o d f o rs e e k i n g c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w w i th th e Su p r e me C our te xpi r e d) . A c c or di ngl y , R obbi ns ’ pe t i t i on w a s t i m e l y , a nd w e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd f orthe tr i a l c our tt o a ddr e s s the m e r i t s of the pe t i t i on. R EVER SED A N D R EM A N D ED .