FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 2, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 12 70 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 01 58 3- CV-1 -VEH-PWG DEMARCUS J AMES MC CLOUD, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us RALPH HOOKS, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 2 , 20 09 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT andCARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andHOOD, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * HOOD, Distric t J ud ge :

Honora ble J oseph M. Hood, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District o f * Kentucky , sitti ngby

designation.Dem arcu s M cCl ou d (“ McC lo ud ” o r “ Defen da nt ”), anAlab am a st at e

pr is on er, ap pe al s the di sm is sa l o f hi s fe de ral habe as co rp us pe ti ti on as t im e-b arre d un de r th e o ne -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns of t he Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Death Pen al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 1 04 -1 32 , 11 0 S tat. 1 21 4 (1 99 6) . At is su e in th is cas e is th e im pa ctof Al ab am a’s co ns ol id at io n ru le , Ala. R. Cri m . P. 13 .3(c ), onth e ti m el in es s o f a d efen da nt ’s hab eas pe ti ti on , when th e d efen dant pl ead s g ui lty

to on e ch arg e, is co nv ic te d b y a jury on ano th er ch arg e, an d s ep arat e jud gm en ts are en te redag ai ns t h im . The an swe r to th is qu es ti on m at eri al ly con tro ls th e tr ig ge rin g d at e fo r th e AEDPA’ s o ne -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns inth e p res en t ap pe al . After r ev ie win g the pa rti es ’ writ te n a ndora l ar gu m en ts , we ho ldth atth e cas es ag ai ns t M cCl ou d wer e se ve redas am atte r of law wh entwo jud gm en ts were en te redag ai ns t h im

by the st at e tr ia l co urt an d the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d McC lo ud ’s pet it io n. I. BACKG ROUND On M arch 11 , 19 98 , th e Cal ho un Co un ty Circu itCo urt, an Alab am a tr ia l co urt, co ns ol id at edfor

tri al two cri m in al cas es pe nd in g a ga in stMcC lo udpu rs ua nt to Alab am a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 1 3.3 . McCl ou d was ch arg edwith fi rs t de gr ee b ur gl ary in on e cas e an d wi th cap it al m ur de r in th e o th er. On M arch 23 , 19 98 , andbe fo re the tri al be ga n, M cCl ou d e nt ereda gu il ty ple a to th e b ur gl ary 2ch arg e. On M arch31 , 19 98 , a jury co nv ic te d M cCl ou d o f cap it al m ur de r. On Apr il 23 , 19 98 , McCl ou d was sen te nc edto ni ne ty-ni ne y ears inth e st at e pe ni te nt iary

on th e b ur gl ary co nv ic ti on . On Ju ly 7, 19 98 , McCl ou d was sen te nc ed to li fe wi th ou t p aro le onth e cap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti on . Sep arat e jud gm en ts were en te redforeach cri m e. McC lo uddi d n otdi rect ly app eal hi s b ur gl ary co nv ic ti on . The Al ab am a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s af firm edhi s capi ta l m

ur de r co nv ic ti on on Apri l 3 0, 19 99 . Se e McCl ou d v . Stat e , 76 8 S o.2 d 1 02 2 (Al a. Cri m . App . 19 99 ) (t ab le ); se e al so Ex Par te McCl ou d, 78 0 S o.2 d 8 11 (Ala . 19 99 ) (t ab le ) (Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt’s i ss ua nc e o f certi fic at e o f jud gm en t). OnMay 18, 2 00 0, M cCl ou d fi le d a pe ti ti on forpo st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f fo r th e b ur gl ary co nv ic ti on un de r Alaba m a Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 2. Th is pe ti ti on was s ig ne d o n Ap ril 17 , 20 00 , andinit McC lo udst at editwou ldbe m ai le d o n Ap ril 19 , 20 00 . On May 11 , 20 04 , McC lo udfil eda su cces si ve Ru le 32 pe ti ti onforrel ie f fro m hi s b ur gl ary co nv ic ti on , si gn edon Octo be r 13 , 20 01 , andto be m ai le d o n Oct ob er 3 0, 2 00 1. The pe ti ti on s cl ai m ed , in te r a li a , in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, i m pr op er g ran d jury pro cedur es , andth atMcC lo ud ’s gu il ty ple a to th e b ur gl ary ch arg e was in vo lu nt ari ly giv en . The Ca lh oun C ou nt y Cir cu itCo urt d en ie d b ot h p et it io ns on Sep te m be r 9, 2 00 4, fo r rea so ns th atwe ne edno t d et ai l h ere, an d the Alab am a 3Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s af firm edth is de ni al on Feb ru ary 18 , 20 05 . The Alab am a Supr em e Co urt d en ie d M cCl ou d’s p et it io n fo r writof c ert io rari to rev ie w hi s R ul e 3 2 p et it io ns on Ju ly 8, 20 05 . McCl ou d l at er fi le d R ul e 3 2 p et it io ns for rel ie f fro m

hi s capi ta l m

ur de r co nv ic ti on . On J ul y 25 , 20 05 , McCl ou d fi le d h is pr o s e § 22 54 habe as co rp us pe ti ti on rai si ng th e fo ll owi ng two cla im s: (1) in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l fo r fai lu re t o withd raw Mc Cl ou d’s g ui lty pl ea t o fi rs t-d eg ree b ur gl ary, an d (2 ) in vo lu nt ari ne ss of th e b ur gl ary gu il ty ple a in th atMcC lo uddi d n otrece iv e an y be ne fitor un de rs tandth e n atur e o f th e p le a. McC lo udli st edbo th th e b ur gl ary an d c ap it al
m ur de r co nv ic ti on s i n h is habe as pe ti ti on . He st at edth e d at e o f jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on as M arch23 , 19 98 , no t d is ti ng ui sh in g b etweenth e two ch arg es . McC lo ud ’s pet it io n a ls o s ta te d: The ch arg e o f fi rs t d eg ree b ur ga lry [si c] was co ns ol id at edwith the Cap it al m ur de r ch arg e. ZOn [s ic ] th e d at e o f tr ia l a p le a was en te red to th e b ur ga lry [si c] char ge . McCl ou d was lat er co nv ic te d o f Cap it al Mu rd er. The ap pe al was a ffi rm edon 4/ 30 /9 9 a ndreh eari ng was de ni edon 6/ 18 /9 9. Fi na ll y , he a ss ert edth athe co m m en cedpo st -co nv ic ti on co ll at eral rev ie w inst at e co urt an d h is m ot io n fo r rev ie w was d en ie d S ep te m be r 9, 2 00 4. The st at e res po nd edan d a rg ue d, in te r a li a , th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d di sm is s M cCl ou d’s p et it io n a s u nt im el y be cau se he di d n otfil e itwithi n o ne y ear 4aft er the st at e co nv ic ti on be cam e fi na l p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (d )(1 )(A).

Sp eci fic al ly, th e st at e arg ue s tha t the st atut e o f li m it at io ns be ga n t o ru n o n J un e 4 , 19 98 , forty-two d ay s af

te r McC lo udwas s en te nc edforburg lary an d, the refo re, i t ex pi redon Ju ne 5, 1 99 9. Mc Cl ou d fi le d h is m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f pu rs ua ntto Alab am a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2 (“ Ru le 32 pe ti ti on ”) o n Ap ril 17 , 20 00 . Thu s, the st at e arg ue s tha t the pe ti ti on was u nt im el y an d due to be di sm is se d. Inrep ly, McC lo udarg ue s tha t the bu rg lary ch arg e was ne ve r se ve redfro m th e cap it al m

ur de r ch arg e aft er the cir cu itco urt g ran te d the Sta te ’s m ot io n fo r co ns ol id at io n und er Ru le 13 .3. As ares ul t, h e co nt en ds th atth e o ne -y ear p eri od was to ll edwhen he di rect ly app eal edth e cap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti on . In ad di ti on , McC lo udass ert s tha t the pe rio d o f li mit at io ns was a ls o t ol le d wh enhe fil edhi s Ru le 32 pe ti ti on on May 18, 2 00 0, u nt il aft er the Alab am a Supr em e Co urt d en ie d
cer ti or ar ias t o tha t p et it io n o n J ul y 8, 2 00 5. Thus , he arg ue s tha t the ve ry lat es t da te th atth e § 22 54 pe ti ti on wou ldha ve be endu e was inApri l 2 00 6, wel l af te r th e Ju ly 200 5 fi li ng da te . A m ag is tra te jud ge en te reda rep ort re co m m en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt de ny McCl ou d’s § 22 54 pe ti ti onas u nt im el y . The m ag is tra te fou ndth atth e co nv ic ti on forfir st -d eg ree b ur gl ary be cam e fi na l o n J un e 4 , 19 98 , forty-two d ay s 5aft er the Marc h 2 3, 1 99 8, g ui lty pl ea t o tha t ch arg e. Ther efo re, the pe ti ti on for habe as co rp us ha d t o b e fi le d b efo re Jun e 7 , 19 99 , whi chis on e y ear a fte r th e bu rg lary co nv ic ti on be cam e fi na l, co un ti ng fro m June 5, 1 99 8, an d e xt en di ng to th e n ex t b us in es s d ay . The m ag is tra te fou ndth atMcC lo ud ’s Rul e 3 2 p et it io n co ul d n otto ll th e fed eral li mit at io ns pe rio d b ecau se itha d a lre ady ex pi red , and th eref or e, th e § 22 54 pe ti ti on was l at e b y m or e th ansi x years. Fu rth erm or e, th e m ag is tra te fou ndth atth e ap pe al fro m th e cap it al m

ur de r co nv ic ti ondi d n otto ll th e habe as li m it at io ns pe rio d b ecau se itwas n otanap pe al fro m th e b ur gl ary co nv ic ti on . The m ag is tra te no te d tha t M cCl ou d kne w th is be cau se inhi s R ul e 3 2 pe ti ti on he sai d tha t h e h adno t fi le d adi rectap pe al fro m hi s b ur gl ary co nv ic ti on . The m ag is tra te als o fo un d tha t M cCl ou d was no t en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g be cau se he fai le d t o d em on st rat e an y ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces be y on d h is co nt ro l wh ic h p rev en te d h im fro m ti m el y fil in g h is pe ti ti on . Neithe r pa rty ob jecte d t o the m ag is tra te ’s rep ort, an d the di st ric t co urt ad op te d the fin di ng s, acce pt edth e rec omm en da ti on , anddi sm is se d the § 2 25 4 p et it io n a s u nt im el y . W e g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity (“ COA”) o n o ne is su e: “ Whe th er th e d is tri ctco urt erredinfin di ng ap pe ll an t’s § 22 54 pe ti ti on un ti m el y inli gh t o f Ala. R. C rim. P. 13 .3.” II . STANDARD OF REVIEW 6Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n tha t the

pe ti ti on forfed eral habe as co rp us rel ie f was ti m e-b arre d u nd er the AEDPA. Moo re v. Cr os by , 32 1 F .3d13 77 , 13 79 (11 thCir . 20 03 ) (ci ti ng St eed v. Head , 21 9 F.3 d 1 29 8, 1 30 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) ); se e a ls o 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) . Thi s C ou rt rev ie ws de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f equi tabl e to ll in g o f fed eral habe as co rp us st atut e’s li m it at io ns pe rio d. Helt on v. Se c’y f or th e Dep ’t o

f Co rr . , 25 9 F .3d13 10 , 13 12 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON The AEDPA est ab li sh es a on e-year st atut e o f li m it at io ns for fil in g § 22 54 pe ti ti on s, wh ic h b eg in s t o ru n fo ll owi ng th e la te stof s ev eral po ss ib le da te s, in cl ud in g the da te on whi chth e p et it io ne r’s jud gm en t b eco m es fin al . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 ); Alex an de r v. S ec’yfo r the Dep’ t o

f Co rr . , 52 3 F .3d12 91 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). To d eci de whet he r a p et it io n fo r writof h ab eas co rp us was fil edwithi n o ne -y ear o f th e co nv ic ti onbe co m in g fi na l, we m us t d et erm in e “ (1 ) whe n the [co ll at eral ] m ot io n was fil edan d (2 ) whe n [t he ] ‘j ud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on ’ be cam e fi na l.” Ada ms v. Un it ed Stat es , 17 3 F .3d13 39 , 13 40 -4 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . A pr o s e pe ti ti on er’s co ll at eral act io n i s d eem edfil edinfed eral co urt o n the da te it is de li ve redto pri so n aut ho rit ie s fo r m ai li ng , andab se ntst at e-p res en te d e vi de nc e to th e co nt rary, w e wil l p res um e th atth e p et it io n was de li ve redon th e d at e th e 7pe ti ti on was s ig ne d. W as hi ng to n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 24 3 F .3d12 99 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). A con vi ct io n i s fi na l at“ th e co nc lu si on of d ire ctrev ie w or the ex pi rat io n of th e ti m e fo r se ek in g s uc h re vi ew.” Pugh v . Smi th , 46 5 F .3d12 95 , 12 98 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (quo ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 )(A)). A st at e p ris on er’s co nv ic ti on be co m es fin al when th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie s cer ti or ar i, is su es a de ci si on on th e m eri ts , or wh enth e n in ety da y pe rio d i n wh ic h t o fi le for cer ti or ar i ex pi res , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e d efen da ntrai se d a ny fede ral is su es on di rect ap pe al . Ni

x v. S ec’yfo r the Dep’ t o

f Co rr . , 39 3 F .3d12 35 , 12 36 -1 23 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 04 ).

“ The ti m e dur in g wh ic h apro pe rly fil edap pl ic at io n fo r St at e p os tco nv ic ti on or o th er co ll at eral rev ie w with re sp ectto th e p ert in en t ju dg m en t o r cl ai m is pe nd in g s ha ll no t b e co un te d t owa rdany pe rio d o f li m it at io n . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (2 ); Cr ame r v. Sec’yfo r the Dep’ t o f Co rr . , 46 1 F .3d13 80 , 13 83 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Whi le a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on is a to ll in g m ot io n u nd er § 22 44 (d )(2 ), itcan no t t ol l the on e-year li m it at io ns pe rio d i f th atpe rio d h as ex pi redpri orto fil in g the Ru le 32 pe ti ti on . W eb st er v. Moo re , 19 9 F .3d12 56 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ); se e Gue nthe r v. Ho ld , 17 3 F .3d13 28 , 13 31 (11 thCir . 19 99 ) (rel ie f so ug ht un de r Ala . R. Cri m . P. 32 qu al ifi es as p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef fo r pu rp os es of § 22 44 (d )(2 )). A Rul e 3 2 p et it io n i s co m m en cedwhen th e p et it io n i s fi le d wi th th e 8cl erkof t he co urt, al on g wi th th e p res cri be d fi li ng fee. Ala . R. Cri m . P. 32 .6.

Und er the he ad in g “ Ch arg es : In di ctm en t, In fo rm at io n, an d C om pl ai nt ,” Alab am a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 1 3.3 (c)- (d ) pr ov id es : (c) C on so li da ti on . If of

fen se s o r de fen da nt s ar e ch arg edinsep arat e in di ctm en ts , in fo rm at io ns , or c om pl ai nt s, the co urt o n i ts own in it ia ti ve or o n m ot io n o f ei th er p arty m ay ord er tha t the ch arg es be tri edto ge th er o r th atth e d efen da nt s b e joi ne d fo r th e p ur po se s o f tr ia l if t he o ffen se s o r the defe nda nts , as the ca se m ay be, co ul d ha ve been joi ned i n a si ng le ind ic tm ent, i nfo rmatio n, or co m pl ai nt. Pro ceed in gs ther ea fter sha ll be the sa m e a s i f the p ro se cuti on in iti al ly w ere u nder a s in gl e in di ctment, inf or m at io n, or co m pl ai nt. Howev er, the co urt s ha ll no t o rd er tha t the off en se s o f, or th e d efen dant s, as th e cas e m ay be , be t rie d t og ethe r witho utfir st pr ov id in g the de fen da ntor d efen da nt s an d the pro se cu to r an op po rtu ni ty to b e h eard . (d ) Tria l. Offe ns es an d defe nda nts joi ned i n the s ame ind ic tm ent, in fo rmatio n, or co m pl ai nt s ha ll be jo in tly tri ed unl es s s ev ered as pro vi ded i n Rule 13 .4. The fa ctth atoff en se s ar e joi nt ly trie d s ha ll no t af fectth e co urt’s p owe r to sen te nc e th e d efen da ntsep arat el y for each off en se of wh ic h the de fen da ntis co nv ic te d; no r sh al l i t af fect th e co urt’s p owe r to pro vi de th atsen te nc es sh al l ru n c on curren tl y or co ns ecu ti ve ly, jus t as if the de fen da ntha d b eentri edsep arat el y for each off en se . Id
. 13 .3(c )-(d ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . Alab am a al so pro vi de s tha t a ju dg m en t b eco m es fin al eithe r atth e co nc lu si on of d ire ctrev ie w or fo rty-two da y s af te r th e se nt en ce is en te red , whi chis th e ti m e inwhi chanap pe al m ay be tak en . Ala. R. App . P. 4( b) (1 ); se e Ex pa rt e W

aldr op , 85 9 S o. 2 d 1 18 1, 1 18 4 n .1 (Al a. 20 02 ). On ap pe al , McCl ou d a rg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y ap pl ie d

9Alab am a la w indi sm is si ng hi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on as u nt im el y . He arg ue s tha t o nc e

ch arg es are co ns ol id at edun de r Ala . R. Cri m . P. 13 .3, the y are treat edas o ne in di ctm en t o r on e se t o f ch arg es th ro ug ho utth e rem ai nd er o f th e p ro ceed in gs for th os e ch arg es . He furt he r arg ue s tha t und er Al ab am a la w, any app eal is tre at edas rep res en ti ng th e en ti re ca ta lo g o f th e co ns ol id at edcas es . McCl ou d c la im s tha t the tri al co urt’s fa il ur e to sev er the cas es pu rs ua ntto Ru le 13 .4 m ean t tha t ca se s rem ai ne d c on so li da te d o n d ire ctap pe al . Thu s, M cCl ou d a rg ue s the di rectap pe al of th e cap it al m

ur de r co nv ic ti on to ll edth e p eri odof l im it at io ns rel at edto hi s habe as pe ti ti on an d i t was no t u nt im el y fil ed . The Sta te arg ue s tha t u nd er Al ab am a la w, McCl ou d’s ca se s wer e se ve redas a m atte r of

law wh enhe pl edgu il ty andwas s en te nc edsep arat el y on th e b ur gl ary ch arg e. The S tate arg ue s tha t the di rectap pe al of t he cap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti on was irr el ev an t t o the ti min g o f McC lo ud ’s hab eas pe ti ti on . The St at e p oi nt s o ut th atm or e th ana y ear p as se d b etweenth e b ur gl ary jud gm en t b eco m in g fi na l an d McC lo ud ’s pet it io ni ng forpo st -co nv ic ti onrel ie f un de r Ru le 32 . Thu s, the st atut e of li m it at io ns ex pi redan d M cCl ou d’s h ab eas pe ti ti on was u nt im el y . The St at e al so arg ue s tha t equi tabl e to ll in g s ho ul d n otap pl y be cau se McC lo udkn ew th e ch arg es were s ep arat e an d treat edth em as s ep arat e. The S tate no te s tha t McC lo ud ’s Rul e 3 2 p et it io ns ad dr es se d e ach ch arg e se pa rat el y an d tha t 10McC lo ud ’s di rectap pe al of t he cap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti ondi d n otad dr es s an y is su es rel at edto hi s g ui lty pl ea o n the bu rg lary

ch arg e, in cl ud in g tho se lat er ra is ed in hi s h ab eas pe ti ti on . Thu s, the re was no lac k o f kn owl ed ge on th e p artof McC lo udth atco ul d i nd ic at e th atequi tabl e to ll in g wo ul d b e ap pr op ria te . Fo r McC lo ud ’s pet it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us to be co ns id eredti m el y , th is Co urt wo ul d h av e to de te rm in e th athi s b ur gl ary an d c ap it al m ur de r cas es rem ai ne d c on so li da te d b ey on d h is sen te nc in g fo r eac h c rime. Ass um in g tha t the ch arg es di d n otrem ai n c on so li da te d, M cCl ou d’s g ui lty pl ea t o the burg lary

ch arg e was fin al on Ju ne 4, 1 99 8, fo rty-two da y s af te r hi s s en te nc in g o n Ap ril 23 , 19 98 . The fin al da y

th atMcC lo udco ul d h av e p et it io ne d fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us was Ju ne 7, 1 99 9, o ne y ear f

ro m th e d ay aft er the bu rg lary

jud gm en t b ecame fin al . McC lo udfil edhi s fi rs t Ru le 32 pe ti ti on rel at in g t o the bu rg lary ch arg e o n M ay

18 , 20 00 , well aft er the habe as pe rio d o f li m it at io ns ex pi red . Con si de rin g the m ur de r co nv ic ti on sep arat el y

is si m il arl y

un fru it fu l fo r McC lo ud . The m ur de r co nv ic ti on be cam e fi na l o n Dec em

be r 30 , 19 99 , lea vi ng McC lo udun ti l Dec em be r 31 , 20 00 , to fil e h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n. Bu t the de ad li ne forfil in g the habe as pe ti ti on pa ss ed witho utan y

ev en ts th atm ig htto ll th e li m it at io ns pe rio d b ecau se McC lo ud ’s earl ie stRu le 32 pe ti ti on s ch al le ng edhi s b ur gl ary pl ea. The Sta te wron gl y arg ue s th atco ns ol id at in g the ch arg es do es no t h el p M cCl ou d b ecau se th e h ab eas pe ti ti on 11was als o u nt im el y rel at iv e to th e cap it al m

ur de r co nv ic ti on be co m in g fi na l. If the ch arg es rem ai ne d c on so li da te d, the n b ot h the ap pe al of t he cap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti on an d the fil in g o f th e Ru le 32 pe ti ti on on th e b ur gl ary ch arg e wou ldto ll th e h ab eas pe ti ti onli mit at io ns pe rio d. AEDPA’s on e y ear t im e p eri odwou ldha ve be gu n o n Dec em

be r 30 , 19 99 , th e d ay

McC lo ud ’s m

ur de r co nv ic ti on be cam e fi na l. Onl y 11 1 d ay s p as se d b etweenth is da te an d wh enMcC lo udfil edhi s fi rs t Ru le 32 pe ti ti on an d o nl y

sev en te enday s p as se d b etweenth e res ol ut io n o f hi s R ul e 3 2 pe ti ti on an d wh enhe fil edhi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on . Thu s, i f th e cas es rem ai ne d co ns ol id at ed , McCl ou d fi le d h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n wel l wi th in th e o ne -y ear li mit at io n p eri od . Thi s C ou rt h as ne ve r ad dr es se d the is su e o f whe th er m ul ti pl e ch arg es co ns ol id at edun de r Alaba m a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 1 3.3 rem ai n c on so li da te d on ap pe al when a de fen da ntpl ead s g ui lty to on e ch arg e, is co nv ic te d b y a jury on an ot he r ch arg e, an d two s ep arat e jud gm en ts are en te redag ai ns t the de fen da nt . A rev ie w of Al ab am a la w off ers no cle ar an swe r to th e que st io n abo utwhateffe ct Ru le 13 .3 h as on habe as pro ceed in gs . In the pa st , we hav e h adop po rtu ni ti es to ad dr es s s im il ar que st io ns whenin te rp ret in g AEDPA’s p ro vi si on s o n the fin al ity of st at e cri m in al pro ceed in gs . For e xa m pl e, in W alker v. Cr os by , th e d efen da ntwas co nv ic te d, s en te nc ed , andth en , m or e th ansi x years l at er, res en te nc ed . 34 1 F .3d 1212 40 , 12 41 -4 2 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 3) . The d efen da ntth enfil eda § 2 25 4 p et it io n

ch al le ng in g b ot h h is un de rlyin g c on vi ct io n a ndne w sen te nc e. Id . at 1 24 2. In rev ers in g the di stric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f th e h ab eas pe ti ti on as unt im el y , we st at ed th atth e h ab eas st atut e o f li m it at io ns is m eas ur ed“ fro m th e d at e o n wh ic h the [la te st ] res en te nc in g ju dg m en t b ecame fin al .” Id . at 1 24 6. Si m il arl y , in Ferr ei ra v. Se cr etar

y fo r the Depa rtmen t o

f Co rr ect io ns , we hel d tha t “ AEDPA’ s s ta tu te of li mit at io ns be gi ns to run fro m th e d at e b ot h the co nv ic ti on an d th e se nt en ce the pe ti ti on er i s s erv in g at the ti m e h e fi le s h is ap pl ic at io n b eco m e fi na l b ecau se jud gm en t i s b as edon bo th th e co nv ic ti on an d the sen te nc e.” 4 94 F.3d12 86 , 12 93 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) ; se e Bur to n v . St ewa rt , 54 9 U.S. 1 47 , 15 6- 51 7 (2 00 7) . Here, Mc Cl ou d’s ca se featur es two sep arat e jud gm en ts , on e eac h fo r th e bu rg lary an d c ap it al m

ur de r ch arg es . Howev er, the cal cu lu s und er § 22 44 (d ) is th e sa m e; we lo okto m at chcon vi ct io ns with ares pe ct iv e se nt en ce an d b eg in ou r co un t fo r pu rp os es of t he AEDPA’ s o ne y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d, fo ll owi ng th e fam il iar ru le s fo r to ll in g a lo ng th e way . W e can saf el y lo okto th e fac t tha t the st at e tr ia l co urt s en te nc edMcC lo udsep arat el y foreach off

en se to de ci de th athi s habe as pe ti ti on is un ti m el y . The l at er s en te nc in g was no t a r es en te nc in g, b ut rel at edon ly to M cCl ou d’s capi ta l m ur de r co nv ic ti on . In ef

fect , forpu rp os es of cal cu la ti ng th e p eri odof l im it at io ns th e tr ia l co urt’s en try of two ju dg m en ts 13se ve redth e co ns ol id at edcas es as am at te r of law. At o ral arg um en t, Mc Cl ou d’s co un se l ar gu edth atth e st at e tr ia l co urt s ho ul d h av e en te reda se pa rat e o rd er t o se ve r th e cas es pu rs ua ntto Ala. R. Cr im . P. 13 .4. We ho ldth atth e en try of se pa rat e jud gm en ts sat is fie d the requi rem en ts of Rul e 1 3.4 . Thu s, fo r pu rp os es of de te rm in in g the ti m el in es s o f McC lo ud ’s hab eas pe ti ti on , we vi ew th e cas es as se ve redan d M cCl ou d’s § 22 54 pe ti ti on was u nt im el y . W e are furth er p ers ua de d b y th e fac t tha t M cCl ou d’s g ui lty pl ea t o the bu rg lary ch arg e o bv ia te d the ne edforco ns ol id at io n a t tria l o r be y on d. Ru le 13 .3(d ) requi res co ns ol id at edcas es be “ joi nt ly trie d unl es s s ev ered ,” an d a s we no te d a t o ral arg um en t, the po li ci es un de rp in ni ng th e co ns ol id at io n ru le are jud ic ia l ef

fic ie nc y an d fa irn es s. Th es e p ol ic ie s ar e n otim pl ic at edinth is cas e be cau se McC lo udpl edgu il ty to the bu rg lary ch arg e an d d eci de d n otto di rect ly ap pe al an y

is su es rel at edto th atch arg e. McC lo ud ’s gu il ty ple a o n the bu rg lary ch arg e el im in at edan y

ne edforth e cas es to rem ai n c on so li da te d fo r tr ia l. As t he Alab am a co urts he ari ng hi s ca se su gg es t, i n a ll li ke li ho odMcC lo ud ’s dec is io n t o pl eadgu il ty to the bu rg lary ch arg e was a ta ct ic al de ci si on , a work -aro un d fo r th e tri al co urt’s ea rli er d eci si on to de ny McCl ou d’s m ot io n fo r se ve ran ce u nd er Ru le 13 .4, m ak in g i t u nn eces sa ry to co nt in ue to tre atth e cas es as c on so li da te d. At o ral arg um en t, Defe nd an t’s co un se l co nc ed edth at , du rin g s en te nc in g o n 14th e b ur gl ary ch arg e, McC lo udwas a dv is edof h is rig htto ap pe al th e jud gm en t o n

th atch arg e. The tria l co urt ad vi se d h im of thi s ri gh t o ve r two m on th s b efo re h e was sen te nc edon th e cap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti on . It ap pe ars th atMcC lo udvi ewed th e cas es as s ev eredth erea fte r be cau se hi s d ire ctap pe al of t he m ur de r ch arg e d id no t ad dr es s an y

is su es rel at edto th e b ur gl ary pl ea an d the co ll at eral att ack s McC lo udm ad e fo cu se d o n e ach ch arg e se parat el y . Mor eo ve r, th e cl os es t McC lo udcam e to ad dr es si ng bo th jud gm en ts was i n h is habe as pe ti ti on , inwhi ch he li st edbo th co nv ic ti on s b uton ly chal le ng edth e b ur gl ary pl ea. The factth at jud gm en t was en te redinth e b ur gl ary cas e an d tha t M cCl ou d was advi se d o f hi s rig ht s t o app eal de m on st rat e th atth e b ur gl ary cas e was sev eredfro m th e cap it al
m ur de r cas e an d M cCl ou d s ho ul d h av e kno wn the ti m e fo r di rect ly app eal in g o r co ll at eral ly atta ck in g the bu rg lary ch arg e h adbe gu n. VII . CONCLUSI ON McC lo ud ’s fai lu re t o fi le hi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us withi n the st atut e o f li m it at io ns est ab li sh edby 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 is fat al . The d eci si on of t he di st ric t co urt i s AFFIRMED .

15