Opinion ID: 77797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mattern's Appeal[6]

Text: The issue of whether a case is moot is a question of law that we review de novo. Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach County, Fla., 382 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir.2004). The state bears the burden of establishing that the claim is moot. Minor v. Dugger, 864 F.2d 124, 125 (11th Cir.1989). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). Because Mattern was in custody at the time he filed his § 2254 petition, he satisfies the requirements of § 2254(a). Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 1925, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989). Nevertheless, a habeas petitioner who has been released from imprisonment subsequent to his filing a § 2254 petition must establish that his petition still presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the United States Constitution, and therefore is not moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 983, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). In other words, once a habeas petitioner has been released from imprisonment, the petitioner must establish that some `collateral consequence' of the conviction exists. Id. The Supreme Court has determined that wrongful convictions can have continuing collateral consequences. Id. at 8, 118 S.Ct. 978. In Spencer, the Supreme Court considered a habeas petitioner's challenge to the revocation of his parole status, and not his underlying conviction. The Court did not presume that collateral consequences resulted from the petitioner's parole revocation, but analyzed whether the petitioner had demonstrated such consequences. Id. at 14, 118 S.Ct. 978. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's argument, that his parole revocation was a collateral consequence to the extent that it could be used to enhance any future sentence, on the basis that such a consequence was contingent on the petitioner's future violation of the law and being convicted. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 15, 118 S.Ct. 978. In the present case, Mattern contends that his petition was not moot because he was implicitly convicted for aggravated battery on a person over age 65 at his probation revocation hearing, that his sentence on the probation revocation was enhanced based on this conviction, and that he faces further collateral consequences now that he has been arrested again. We agree. Unlike the petitioner in Spencer, Mattern's probation revocation judgment and sentence has been used to enhance his new sentence, and Mattern has suffered collateral consequences. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in finding that Mattern's habeas petition was moot. That conclusion does not, however, end our inquiry. The magistrate judge found that Mattern's claims were time-barred and Mattern should have known through due diligence that his prior conviction was listed as aggravated battery on his sentencing score sheet. Mattern's original conviction became final on October 8, 1998. He was sentenced for revocation of probation on June 15, 1999, and his state post-conviction motions were denied in August 1999 and October 2000. But Mattern did not file his federal habeas petition until April 2001. Section 2244(d) of Title 28 provides that the one-year statute of limitations period for habeas petitions runs from the latest of  (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review . . . or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), (D). As the magistrate judge correctly noted, more than one year elapsed between the finality of Mattern's original conviction and the date on which he filed his federal habeas petition. Thus, if § 2244(d)(1)(A) triggers the limitations period, the petition was untimely. However, if the factual predicate for the claims was not known until some later date, such as the date on which he was sentenced for the probation revocation, the later date would be the trigger for the limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). Mattern contends that he did not know of the factual predicate of his claim until he was sentenced at the probation revocation hearing, and, therefore his petition is timely. Although the magistrate judge found that Mattern should have known of the factual predicate of his claims earlier through due diligence, the district court did not render its decision on this ground, nor did it hold an evidentiary hearing to consider the issue. Therefore, we conclude that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether Mattern knew or should have known of the factual predicate for his claims earlier through due diligence. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing addressing the timeliness issue. VACATED and REMANDED.