F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 1 3, 2006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1595 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-00021 -CV -O RL -22KRS PE TE R A LL ENST IT ES , Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
SE CRE TA RY, DE PA RT MEN T O F CORRE CT IO NS , FLORIDA ATTORNEY G ENERAL, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(S ep te m be r 13, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Peter Allen S tites, a F lorida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’ s dism issal of his habeas petiti on, 28 U. S. C. § 225 4, as bar red bythe oney ear sta tut e of

li m itatio ns o f the A nti te rr or ism a nd E ff ec tiv e D ea th P en al ty

A ct of 1996 ( “ A E D PA ”)
. W e gr an te d ac er tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

on “ w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y

dis m iss ed

appe llant’ s 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54 p et iti on a s un tim el y in ligh t of his Fla.R .Cr im .P . 3. 800(c) m otion for r eduction o f sentence. ” Reversible er

ror has been shown; we vacate and rem and for additional pr oc ee din gs. In his habeas petitio n, Stites stated that, after the Florida Fifth D istrict Court of Appe al a ff

irm ed his c onvi ct iona nd s en te nc e, he f ile d tw o st at e post -c onvi ct ion
m otion s -- f

irst, a m otion pursuant to Fla. R.C rim .P . 3. 800(c) to reduce his sentence and later, a m otion pursuant to Fla. R.C rim .P . 3. 850 to vacate, set aside, or corre ct his se nte nc e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at S tit es ’ s A E D PAli m itatio ns p er iod tol le d w hil e his Ru le 3. 850 m oti on w as pe ndi ng; but the c ourt di d no t e xpl ai n whether Stites’ s AE DP A lim itations period tolled as a result of his Rule 3.800(c)
m oti on. A lth oughS tit es ’ s R ule 3. 850 m oti on t oll ed

his A E D PAli m itatio ns p e r i o d , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts t i l l c o n c l u d e dt h a th i s h ab e a s p e t i t i o n wa s u n t i mel y. W e re vie w de nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm ina tio n th at aha be as pe tit ionis tim e-barr ed. Bond v. Moore, 309 F.3d 770 , 772 (11th Cir. 2002). The AE DP AStit es contends that the trial court held an evidentiar y hear ing on his Rule 3.800(c) motion and 1 g ra nte d h im r e lie f on the mot ion
. Th e State c on c e de s that Stit e s’ s se nte nc e wa s re du c e d a s a re su lt of his Rul e 3.800(c) motion. Aga in, beca use the re cord on a

ppeal doe s not contain additional inf or matio n a bo ut S tit e s’ s Ru le 3. 80 0( c ) m oti on , w e c ann ot v e ri fy the se state me nts . 3 im pose s aone -y ear lim itatio ns p er iod on a ll habe as c or

pus pe tit ion s. S ee 28 U
. S. C. § 22 44( d) (1 )( A ) (m ea sur ing thi s on e- y ear pe ri od f ro m , a m ong oth er

thi ngs,

“ the date on which the j udgm ent becam e final by the conclusio n of direct re view or the expiration of the tim e for se eking su ch review ”). While a “ properly filed ap pli ca tio n f

or S ta te pos t- co nvi ct ionor

oth er c oll at er al r ev ie w ” is p en din g, however, the lim itations period is toll ed. 28 U. S. C. § 224 4(d)(2). In this case, the record on appeal does not contain Stites’ s Rule 3.800(c)
m oti on o r ad dit ion al inf

orm at ionabout

the state c ourt’ s c onsi de ratio n of the
m otion
. W e cannot determ ine from the rec ord the nature of the claim s Stites
ra ise d inhis Ru le 3. 800( c) m oti on n or howthe state c ourt di spos ed of his m oti on. 1 T he re fo re , w e ar e una

ble to re sol ve w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly appl ie d th e AE DP A’ s one-y ear statute of lim itations
. W e vacate and rem and for the district
co urt t o de ve lop the r ec or d inthi s c as e an d a ddr es s th es e iss ue s. VACATED AN D REMANDED.