FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 14, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 13431 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 1 4 0 6 8 - CV- DLG J O S E P H O . M C C A L L U M ,

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 , J a m e s R . M c D o n o u g h , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 14, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J os e ph O . M c C a l l um , 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 m i s s a l of

hi s f e de r a l ha be a s c orpus pe t i t i on, f i l e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254, a s “s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s iv e .” A f te rr e v ie w , w e a f

f ir m . I . B AC KG RO UN D In 19 90 , i n the F l ori da st at e c ou rt , M cC al l um pl ed gu i l ty t o sec on d-degree m urder w i th a fi re arm , tw o cou nt s of a rm ed bu rgl ary, and g ra nd theftand rece i ved c o n c u r r e n t 6 0 - y e a rs e n te n c e s . M c C a l l um f

i l e d a F l or i da R ul e of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 3. 800( a ) m ot i on a l l e gi ng, i nt e ra l i a , tha thi s s e nt e nc e f ors e c ond- de gr e e m ur de re xc e e de d the s ta tu to r y m a x im u m s e n te n c e . I n M a r c h 1 9 9 4 , th e s ta te c o u r t d e n ie d th is m o tio n . In 19 97 , M cC al l um fi l ed hi s i ni t i al § 2 25 4 p et i t i on i n w hi ch he al l eged, i nt er al i a, thathi s 60-ye arse nt ence for s ec on d-degree mu rderexce eded the st atut ory m a xi m um . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d thi s i ni t i a l § 2254 pe t i t i on on the m e r i t s a nd M c C a llu m ’s m o tio n f

o ra c e r tif

ic a te o f ap p e a la b ility ( “C O A ” ) . M c C a l l um s ubs e que nt l y f i l e d a m ot i on f

orc l a r i f i c a t i on of

j udgm e nta nd s e n te n c e in s ta te c o u r t. I n O c to b e r2 0 0 0 , th e s ta te c o u r t g r a n te d th e m o tio n a s to hi s s e c ond- de gr e e m ur de rs e nt e nc e a nd or de r e d tha ta n a m e nde d j udgm e nta nd s e nt e nc e be e nt e r e d tha tr e duc e d hi s s e nt e nc e f ors e c ond- de gr e e m ur de rf r om 60 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm entt o 4 0 yea rs . T he st at e c ou rtno t ed, ho w ever , thatthe se nt enceThe R &R also concluded that McCallum’s § 2254 petition was untimely . Be causethe 1 COA is limi ted to the issue of whether McCallum’s § 2254 petition was second or suc cessive, we de cline to address this issue. 3 for s ec on d-degree mu rderst i l l w ou l d run concurrentw i th h i s tw o 6 0-ye ar sen t en ces fo r th e arm ed b u rg l ary co u n t s. In M ar ch 20 06 , M cC al l um fi l ed the i nst ant§ 2 25 4 p et i t i on i n the di stri ct c our t . M c C a l l um a l l e ge d tha thi s pl e a w a s i nvol unt a r y be c a us e ( 1) he w oul d not have pl ed t o a se nt ence thatexce eded the st atut ory m axi m um for the se cond -degree m urder count , and (2) he w ou l d n othave pl ed t o 6 0-ye arse nt ence s f or the arm ed bur gl a r y c ount s i f

hi s c ouns e l ha d a dvi s e d hi m tha the c oul d be s e nt e nc e d t o no m or e tha n 40 y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e nton the s e c ond- de gr e e m ur de rc ount . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s r eportand recom m endat i on (“ R & R ”) re com m ended t hat M cC al l u m ’ s p resen t§ 2 2 5 4 p et i t i o n b e d i sm i ssed as seco n d o r su ccessi v e b ecau se M cC al l um had fi l ed a pri or § 2 25 4 p et i t i on . T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed 1 M c C a l l um ’ s pr e s e nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on ba s e d on hi s f a i l ur e t o obt a i n pr i or a u th o r iz a tio n f

r o m th is C o u r t a s r e q u ir e d b y 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) . M c C a l l um the n f

i l e d a m ot i on f

ora C O A i n the di s tr i c tc our t . T he ma g i s tr a t e j u d g e ’ s R & R r e c o mme n d e d th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rtg r a n tM c Ca l l u m a C O A on the i ss ue of w hether M cC al l um shou l d “ be grant ed l ea ve t o fi l e a s uc c e s s i ve pe t i t i on. ” T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d M c C a l l um a C O A on the gr oundIn the event the district court’s COA still encompasse s the question of whe ther 2 Mc Callum sh ould b egra

nte d le aveto f

ilea se c on d o r s uc c e ssiveha

be a s c or pu s p e tition , w eno te that applications for

such leave must be filed in the a ppellate c ourt, not the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)( 3)(A) . Indeed, w e previously denied a n application from McCallum in 2005 seekingleaveunder § 2244(b)( 3)(A) to raise a n identical claim to the claim raised in his present 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe tition . In reMc Callum, N o. 05 -1 57 06 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) . H ow e ver, if Mc Callum’ s p re sent § 2254 petition was not a sec ond or succ essive habe as cor pus petition, then § 2244(b)( 3)(A) was not re quired. Thus, our opinion addresses only whether McCallum’s pre sent § 2254 petition is truly a “se cond or suc cessive”habea s corpus pe tition.

4 s t a t e d i n the R & R . A f t e rthe S t a t e m ove d t o di s m i s s thi s appe a l , w e de ni e d the S t a t e ’ s m ot i on a nd c ons true d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s C O A a s i nc l udi ng the i s s ue of w he the rM c C a l l um ’ s “ ha be a s c orpus pe t i t i on w a s a ‘ s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve ’ pe t i t i on re qu i ri ng autho ri za t i on fr om thi s C ou rtpu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(b)(3). ” S ee 2 M c C a l l um v. S e c ’ y f

orthe D e p’ tof

C or r . , N o. 06- 13431 ( 11th C i r . O c t . 18, 2006) ( o r d e rd e n y in g m o tio n to d is m is s ) . 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 ”) re qu i re s that“ [b] ef

ore ase cond or succ es si ve appl i ca t i on . . . i s f i l ed i n the di stri ct court , the appl i ca ntshal l m ov e i n t he approp ri at e c ou rtof appeal s f or an order a uthor i z i ng the di s tr i c tc our tt o c ons i de rthe appl i c a t i on. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2244( b) ( 3) ( A ) . A di s tr i c tc our tl a c ks j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de ra “ s e c ond or succ es si ve” habeas corpus pet i t i on thathas notbeen previ ou sl y autho ri ze d b y a nWe reviewde novo the district cour t’s dismiss al of a

habea s corpus pe tition as “second 3 o r s u cc es s i v e. ” M cIve r v . Un i t edS t at es , 3 0 7 F. 3 d 1 3 2 7 , 1 3 2 9 (1 1 thC i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( re v i ew i n g a fe deral priso ner’ s mo tio n tovac ate , s e t a side , o r c or re c t a sentenc e , p ur su ant to 2 8 U .S. C. § 2255). The statutory

languag e which permits a state prisoner to file a “ second or

succe ssive” petition is “materially

identical” to that whic h permits a fe deral prisoner to file a “sec ond or succe ssive” motion to vacatea sentence. I n re D ean, 341 F .3d 1247, 1249 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003). 5 appel l at e c ou rt . H i l l v. H op per, 11 2 F . 3d 10 88 , 10 89 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ). 3 B e c a u s e “[ t]h e p h r a s e ‘s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s iv e ’ is n o t s e lf - d e f in in g ,” its m e a ni ng i s de r i ve d f

r om j udi c i a l i nt e rpr e t a t i on i n de c i s i ons tha tboth pr e da t e a nd pos t da t e the A E D P A . P a ne tt i v. Q ua r t e r m a n, 551 U . S . , , 127 S . C t . 2842, 28 53 (200 7). T he S up re m e C ou rt“ has dec l i ned t o i nt erpret‘ se cond or succ es si ve’ as re fe rr i ng t o al l § 2 25 4 app l i ca t i on s f i l ed se cond or succ es si vel y i n t i m e, even w he n the l a t e rf

i l i ngs a ddr e s s a s t a t e - c our tj udgm e nta l r e a dy c ha l l e nge d i n a pr i or § 2254 appl i c a t i on. ” I d. A ha be a s c orpus pe t i t i on i s nots ubj e c tt o the r e s tr i c t i ons agai nst“ se cond or succ es si ve” pet i t i on s i f i t“ att ac ks the const i tut i on al i ty of [ the] re -s ent enci ng proceedi ng on l y, and n otthe val i di ty of [ the] conv i ct i on . ” I n re G r e e n, 215 F . 3d 1195, 1196 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ; s e e a l s o H e pbur n v. M oor e , 215 F . 3d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 0 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c o mme n t i n g i n a c a s e ap p l y i n g th e A ED PA lim ita tio n p e r io d th a t “[ e ]v e r y c ir c u it th a t h a s a d d r e s s e d th e is s u e h a s a g r e e d th a t, un der the A E D P A , w hen n ew cl ai m s ori gi nat e a tre se nt enci ng , tho se cl ai m s m ay be br oughti n a s ubs e que ntha be a s pe t i t i on w i thoutthe ne c e s s i ty of obt a i ni ng p e r m is s io n f

r o m th e c ir c u it c o u r t b e f o r e f ilin g th e p e titio n ” ) .6

M cC al l um ’ s pre se nt§ 2 25 4 p et i t i on cl ai m s thathi s gui l ty pl eaw as i nvol unt a r y a nd s e e ks t o w i thdr a w hi s pl e a . T hus , M c C a l l um ’ s pr e s e nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on i s a “ s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve ” ha be a s c orpus pe t i t i on be c a us e i ta tt a c ks the val i di ty of hi s c on vi ct i on s, no thi s r es ent enci ng on the se cond -degree m urder c o u n t. S e e I n r e G r e e n , 2 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 6 . M c C a l l um a r gue s tha thi s c onvi c t i ons c l a i m i n hi s pr e s e nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on “o r ig in a te s ” a t h is r e s e n te n c in g o n th e s e c o n d - d e g r e e m u r d e rc o u n t b e c a u s e h e d id notr e a l i z e tha thi s pl e a w a s ba s e d on f a ul ty a dvi c e f

r om hi s tr i a l c ouns e l unt i l 2000 w he n the s t a t e c our tde c l a r e d tha thi s s e c ond- de gr e e m ur de rs e nt e nc e e xc e e de d the s t a tut or y m a xi m um a nd r e s e nt e nc e d hi m . T he pr obl e m f orM c C a l l um i s tha the cl ea rl y w as aw ar e, before re se nt enci ng , of the cl ai m s thathi s m urder s ent ence e x c e e d e d th e s ta tu to r y m a x im u m a n d , th a t, th u s , h is g u ilty p le a w a s in v o lu n ta r y . A s e ar l y a s 199 4, M cC al l um ar gu ed i n st at e c ou rtthathi s s ec on d-degree mu rder se nt ence exce eded the st atut ory m axi m um and rai se d thi s c l ai m agai n i n h i s i ni t i al § 2 25 4 p et i t i on i n 1 99 7. B ec ause , before any r es ent enci ng , M cC al l um w as aw ar e of the a r gum e nttha thi s 60- y e a rs e c ond- de gr e e m ur de rs e nt e nc e e xc e e de d the st atut ory m axi m um of 40 ye ar s, he al so w as aw ar e of the deri vat i ve ar gu m entthat hi s pl e a w a s i nvol unt a r y be c a us e hi s c ouns e l pr ovi de d hi m w i th e r r one ous s e nt e nc i ng a dvi c e a bouttha ts t a tut or y m a xi m um . T he f a c ttha tthe pr e m i s e ofWe need not, and do not, de cide whether a habea s corpus pe tition i s “sec ond or 4 su c c e ssive ”wh e n it

raise s a c laim thee xistenc eof

wh ic h th epe tition e r w a s n ot a wa reuntil re s ent en ci n g. 7 M cC al l um ’ s a rgum entthathi s pl eaw as i nv ol un t ary - hi s s ec on d-degree mu rder s e n te n c e e x c e e d e d th e s ta tu to r y m a x im u m - w a s n o t v a lid a te d u n til h is re se nt enci ng i n 2 00 0 d oes notm ea n thatthe ar gu m enti t se l f onl y “ ori gi nat ed” a t r e s e nt e nc i ng. 4 A c c or di ngl y , be c a us e M c C a l l um ’ s pr e s e nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on a tt a c ks the v a lid ity o f

h is c o n v ic tio n s , a n d n o t h is r e s e n te n c in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly di sm i ss ed hi s pre se nt§ 2 25 4 p et i t i on as “ se cond or succ es si ve. ” AF F I RME D.