FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 3, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 26 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -1 42 40 -WJZ BILLY LEON KEARSE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , vers us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en ts - App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 3, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, M ARCUS an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r Bi ll y

Leon Kears e, anin m at e o n F lo rid a’s de ath ro w, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on as u nt im el y . W e fi ndth atth e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d t he in co rrec t s tand ardto ev al ua te th e ti m el in es s o f hi s

pe ti ti on , res ul ti ng inth e fai lu re t o c on si de r co m pe ll in g e vi de nc e th atth e p et it io n was “pr op erl y

fil ed ” withi n t he m ean in g o f 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (2 ). Ins te adof ap pl y in g t he “ cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ” st an dardof 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 1) , th e di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d § 22 54 (d ) to ev al ua te th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e st at e co urt’s or ig in al di sm is sa l. We the refo re v acat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er an d re m an d fo r co ns id erat io n o f th e p et it io n’s t im el in es s i n l ig htof t he ap pr op ria te ev id en ce. The cru x o f th is ap pe al co nc ern s wh ethe r a s ta nd ard , on e-p ag e v eri fic at io n do cu m en t ac co m

pa ni edKears e’s in it ia l m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f, whi chth e st at e co urt d oc ke te d o n Oct ob er 3 , 20 01 . The s ta te cir cu itco urt d is m is se d wi th ou t pr ejud ic e th e in it ia l m ot io n a s n on co m pl ia ntwith F lo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 1. Th e st at e ci rcu itco urt l at er cl ari fie d t hi s d is m is sa l wh enit de ni edKears e’s m ot io n fo r reh eari ng an d e xp la in edth atKears e’s in it ia l m ot io n

“ di d n otha ve att ach ed , in co rp or at ed , or app en de d t o i t, an oa th whi chco nf orm s with t he requi rem en ts of [ Ru le 3.8 51 ]. ” On J un e 2 0, 2 00 2, Kea rs e fi le d am ot io n t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce, wh ic h t he st at e co urt co ns id eredon th e m eri ts . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt u lt im at el y

de ni edrel ie f on Kears e’s po st co nv ic ti on m ot io n, Kea rs e v. Sta te , 96 9 S o. 2 d 9 76 (Fl a. 20 07 ), an d o n h is su cces si ve m ot io n, Kea rs e v. Sta te , 11 So . 23d35 5 (F la . 20 09 ). On J ul y 16 , 20 09 , Kears e fi le d i n fe de ral di st ric t co urt the pe ti ti on th atis th e subjec t o f th is ap pe al . On Nov em be r 22 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt di sm is se d Kea rs e’s pe ti ti on as u nt im el y , andth is ap pe al fol lo wed . W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f a h ab eas pe ti ti on on ti m el in es s g ro un ds . Cr ame r v. Sec’y, Dep’ t o

f Co rr . , 46 1 F .3d13 80 , 13 83 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). The Ant i-Te rro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (AEDPA) im po se s a o ne -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns forfil in g afed eral habe as pe ti ti on . 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 ). Thi s o ne -y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d i s t ol le d wh il e a “pr op erl y fil ed ” ap pl ic at io n fo r st at e p os tc on vi ct io n re li ef i s p en di ng inst at e co urt. Id
. § 2 24 4( d) (2 ). AEDPA furthe r requi res fed eral co urts to de fer t o ast at e co urt’s de te rm in at io n o f a fac tu al is su e, th ou ghitpe rm it s a p et it io ne r to reb utth os e de te rm in at io ns by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. Id
. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ). Thi s i s n otth e sa m e as § 2 25 4( d) , whi chpro hi bi ts a fed eral co urt fr om gr an ti ng ha be as rel ie

f un le ss th e st at e co urt’s ad ju di ca ti on of

a cl ai m res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas

“ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh ed Fed eral law” or wa s “ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t of th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” Id
. § 2 25 4( d) (1 )– (2 ).

3The di stric t co urt’s o rd er d is m is si ng Kears e’s pe ti ti on co nf la te d § 22 54 (d ) with § 22 54 (e)( 1) su chth atth e co urt d idno t co ns id er k ey ev id en ce o f th e pe ti ti on ’s ti m el in es s: th e ti m e-s ta m pe d c op ie s o f th e in it ia l m ot io n a ndve rif ic at io n sh owi ng th atth e st at e co urt re cei ve d b ot h o n Oct ob er 3 , 20 01 , at 9 :5 3 a .m . Kears e’s fai lu re t o p res en t the se do cu m en ts to th e st at e co urt i s i rrel ev an t, as 1 AEDPA do es no t re qu ire pre se nt at io n t o t he st at e co urt i n t hi s i ns ta nc e. Co mpa re 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ) (“ [A] dete rm in at io n o f a fac tu al is su e m ad e b y a St at e co urt s ha ll be pre su m edto be co rrec t. The [pe ti ti on er] sh al l h av e th e b ur de n o f reb ut ti ng th e p res um

pt io n o f co rrec tn es s b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e.”), wi th 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ) (p ro hi bi ti ng fed eral co urts fro m gra nt in g h ab eas rel ie f un le ss “ ad

ju di ca ti on of

th e clai m . . . res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas b as edon an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts in li gh t o f the evi de nc e p rese nt ed

in th e St at e co ur t p ro ceed in g ”) (e m ph as es ad de d) . The d is tri ctco urt’s § 22 54 (d ) ev al ua ti onha s n o p la ce i n d et erm in in g t he ti m el in es s o f Kears e’s pe ti ti on , as t he
See District Court Order

at 19 (“ Whil e Mr. Ke arse may now pre sent a c ompelling c ase 1 for the f act that his Ve rification was filed alongwith his mot ion on October 3, 2001, it is notthe same c ase he prese nted to the state c ourt. Be cause , under the AEDPA, a f ederal habe as cour

t revie ws the state c ourt’s adjudica tion and deter

mines that it ‘resulted in a de cision that was contra ry to, or involved an unre asonable application of, c learly established fe dera l law, as deter mined by the Supreme Court of theUnited States,’ or ‘ resulted in a de cision that was base d on an unre asonable deter

mination of the fac ts in light of the ev idencepresented in the state c ourt procee ding .’” ( citing 28 U .S.C. § 2254(d)(1)–(2) )). As state d above, this § 2254(d) analy sis is inapplicable when the f

eder al cour

t is not reviewingthe state c ourt’s adjudication of a cla im for relief . Instead, § 2254(e )(1) provides the a ppropriate standard he re. 4st at e co urt’s co nc lu si on th atitwas i m pr op erl y fil edinth e fi rs t i ns ta nc e is a fin di ng of f

act—n ot“ ad

jud ic at io n o f [a] clai m ” und er § 22 54 (d ). Se e Fah y v. Horn , 51 6 F .3d16 9, 1 80 (3dCir . 20 08 ); se e a ls o Gon za le z v. C ro sb y , 54 5 U.S. 52 4, 5 30 , 12 5 S . Ct. 2 64 1, 2 64 7 (2 00 5) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ cl ai m ” in an othe r AEDPA pro vi si on m ean s “ anass ert edfed eral ba si s fo r rel ie f fro m a st at e co urt’s jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on ”). Here, the st at e co urts fou ndas am at te r of factth atKears e’s in it ia l m ot io n

“ di d n otha ve att ach ed , in co rp or at ed , or app en de d t o i t, an oa th whi chco nf orm s with t he requi rem en ts of [ Ru le 3.8 51 ]. ” AEDPA permits Kears e th e o pp ortu ni ty to reb utth is factwith c le ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th atth e v eri fic at io n was in factso ap pe nd ed , witho utreg ardto th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e st at e co urt’s de ci si on . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ). The d is tri ctco urt d idno t fu ll y ev al ua te th e

“ co m pe ll in g c as e” tha t Kears e p res en te d, an d we a re i n n o p os it io n t o m ak e th is fin di ng inth e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. W e th eref or e v acat e th e o rd er o f th e d is tri ctco urt an d rem an d fo r co ns id erat io n o f whe th er Kear se canpre se ntcle ar an d c on vi nc in g ev id en ce t o re bu t the st at e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in g t ha t the ve rif ic at io n p ag e was no t at ta ch edto Kears e’s in it ia l m ot io n. VACATED AND REMANDED.

5