Court Opinion

ID: 9910722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 14:00:50.930454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:56.544564
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13323    Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/18/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-13323
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        TIMOTHY SNEED,
                                                     Petitioner-Appellant,
        versus
        SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                                   Respondent-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-00420-AW-MAF
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13323       Document: 32-1    Date Filed: 12/18/2023    Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court               22-13323

        Before WILSON, JORDAN and HULL, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Timothy Sneed, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se from the
        district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition.
        Sneed’s § 2241 petition (1) challenges the Florida courts’ final
        determination of the amount of days for his credit for time served
        and (2) contends that the Florida Department of Corrections
        (“DOC”) improperly rescinded credit for some of his time served.
        The district court dismissed his § 2241 petition as untimely
        pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations period in 28 U.S.C.
        § 2244(d)(1).
                On appeal, Sneed argues that his § 2241 petition was timely
        or, alternatively, that the limitation period does not apply to him
        under the miscarriage-of-justice exception. After review, we affirm
        the district court’s dismissal.
                       I.     FACTUAL BACKGROUND
        A.    2000 to 2010
                In 2000, Sneed was convicted of second-degree murder with
        a firearm and sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment, with 765 days’
        credit for time served prior to the imposition of the sentence.
                Sneed appealed, and the Florida appellate court reversed his
        murder conviction and sentence and remanded the case for a new
        trial in 2004. On remand, in 2005, Sneed was retried and again
USCA11 Case: 22-13323      Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/18/2023     Page: 3 of 11

        22-13323               Opinion of the Court                         3

        convicted of the same murder crime and sentenced to 30 years’
        imprisonment, this time with 495 days’ credit.
               Subsequently, Sneed made a series of attempts to receive the
        proper amount of credit for time served. See Sneed v. State, 99 So.
        3d 514, 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011). In 2010, the state trial court
        entered a corrected sentence providing Sneed with 1,265 days’
        credit. Id.
                Sneed then challenged that calculation of 1,265 days’ credit.
        Id. Ultimately, the state conceded that Sneed was entitled to
        additional credit for time served. Id. But a dispute remained as to
        the proper amount of credit. In the Florida appellate court, Sneed
        asserted that the correct amount was 2,746 days’ credit, while the
        state contended that the correct amount was 2,703 days’ credit. Id.
        The Florida appellate court remanded and instructed the
        sentencing trial court to determine the correct amount of credit.
        Id. at 514-15.
        B.    August 24, 2011 to March 26, 2012
               On August 24, 2011, the sentencing trial court issued an
        “ORDER CORRECTING MOTION FOR CREDIT TIME
        SERVED.” The court clarified that Sneed was to receive credit for
        all time served from his arrest on October 7, 1998 through his
        resentencing on February 28, 2006, for a total of 2,701 days. In that
        order, the trial court determined the correct amount of credit was
        2,701 days, stating that Sneed “shall be awarded a total of 2,701 days
        credit for time served.” That same day, the state trial court issued
USCA11 Case: 22-13323     Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/18/2023    Page: 4 of 11

        4                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13323

        a corrected sentencing order, which stated Sneed was “ENTITLED
        TO AN ADDITIONAL” 2,701 days of credit.
               Sneed appealed, interpreting the trial court’s order to mean
        that he was entitled to 2,701 days’ credit plus 1,265 days’ credit
        from an earlier judgment (for a total of 3,966 days). Sneed argued
        that the DOC effectively rescinded the initial award of 1,265 days’
        credit, which the subsequent August 2011 trial court order did not
        explicitly nullify. Sneed v. Inch, 2023 WL 4624472, at *1 (11th Cir.
        July 19, 2023) (summarizing Sneed’s state court proceedings).
        C.    2012
               On January 5, 2012, the Florida appellate court rejected
        Sneed’s interpretation of the August 2011 order and held that Sneed
        “was not awarded an additional credit of 2,701 days for time
        served” beyond the initial 1,265 days’ credit. Sneed v. State, No.
        3D11-2822 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2012) (Miscellaneous Order
        (OR999)). Instead, “[t]he trial court recalculated the number of
        days served and awarded [Sneed] a total (both local time and state
        time) of 2,701 days.” Id. The DOC was thus in compliance.
               On March 26, 2012, the mandate issued. As of March 26,
        2012, the Florida courts’ calculation of Sneed’s time-served credit—
        2,701 days—was final. See Howard v. State, 322 So. 3d 134, 137 (Fla.
        Dist. Ct. App. 2021) (stating an appellate court’s judgment is final
        “where it issues a mandate”).
USCA11 Case: 22-13323       Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/18/2023      Page: 5 of 11

        22-13323                Opinion of the Court                          5

        D.     2012 Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to 2014 Mandate
               On May 15, 2012, Sneed filed a petition for a writ of
        mandamus in state court, seeking an application of the “additional”
        credit to his sentence. The state trial court denied Sneed’s
        mandamus petition, finding that the Florida appellate court (on
        January 5, 2012) clearly and unequivocally stated that Sneed was
        only entitled to a total of 2,701 days’ credit. Sneed v. Dep’t of Corr.,
        No. 2012-CA-001587 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 1, 2013). Indeed, Sneed had
        attached this Florida appellate court’s January 5, 2012 order to his
        mandamus petition.
               The Florida appellate court denied Sneed’s petition for a
        writ of certiorari on the merits. In June 2014, the mandate issued
        on Sneed’s mandamus petition.
        E.     2019 State Habeas Petition
               Five years later, in July 2019, Sneed filed a state petition for
        a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the amount of time-served
        credit that he received and seeking immediate release. On
        February 23, 2020, the state trial court denied the petition. On
        October 28, 2020, the Florida appellate court affirmed. See Sneed v.
        Inch, 320 So. 3d 148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020).
        F.     2021 § 2241 Habeas Petition in Federal Court
               In October 2021, Sneed filed a § 2241 habeas petition in
        federal court. Sneed challenged the execution of his sentence, not
        his underlying conviction or sentence.
USCA11 Case: 22-13323            Document: 32-1   Date Filed: 12/18/2023   Page: 6 of 11

        6                           Opinion of the Court             22-13323

               The DOC moved to dismiss Sneed’s § 2241 petition on the
        basis that Sneed did not file his petition within the one-year statute
        of limitations required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Sneed objected,
        asserting that his § 2241 petition was not untimely. He also
        contended that he was not subject to the “one-year time limit”
        because “there can be no statutory time bar to seeking immediate
        release” from an expired sentence.
               The district court rejected Sneed’s arguments, finding that
        28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s one-year time limit applied. The district
        court concluded that the limitation period began sometime in 2012
        when the Florida appellate court determined that Sneed was
        entitled to only a total of 2,701 days’ credit and Sneed became
        aware of that decision. As such, the district court dismissed Sneed’s
        § 2241 petition, filed in 2021, as untimely because there was at least
        a five-year period during 2014 to 2019 when nothing was pending
        related to this challenge.
                   Sneed timely appealed.
                           II.      STANDARD OF REVIEW
               We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a petition for
        a writ of habeas corpus. San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257, 1265
        (11th Cir. 2011).
            III.     ONE-YEAR LIMITATION FOR FEDERAL HABEAS
                                    PETITIONS
               Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), “[a] 1-year period of
        limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus
USCA11 Case: 22-13323         Document: 32-1        Date Filed: 12/18/2023         Page: 7 of 11

        22-13323                  Opinion of the Court                                7

        by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”
        We have held that the one-year statute of limitations applies to a
        § 2241 petition brought by a person imprisoned pursuant to a state
        court judgment. See Peoples v. Chatman, 393 F.3d 1352, 1353 (11th
        Cir. 2004) (holding that a state prisoner’s § 2241 petition was
        subject to the one-year statute of limitations in § 2244(d)(1)). 1
               Sneed was in custody pursuant to a state court judgment.
        See Clements v. Florida, 59 F.4th 1204, 1206 (11th Cir. 2023)
        (“[C]ustody generally means physical detention or confinement.”).
        Thus, Sneed’s § 2241 petition was subject to the § 2244(d)(1) one-
        year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); see Peoples, 393
        F.3d at 1353.
                                   IV.     DISCUSSION
        A.     Factual Predicate
                The one-year limitation period begins to run from, inter alia,
        “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)(D). We need not determine the
        earliest possible time the factual predicate could have been
        discovered with due diligence. This is because we may affirm a
        district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely based on

        1 “[C]hallenges to the execution of a sentence, rather than the validity of the

        sentence itself, are properly brought under § 2241.” Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P.
        Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). Sneed’s time-served credit claim
        relates to the execution of his sentence and is properly brought under § 2241.
        The DOC does not contend otherwise.
USCA11 Case: 22-13323       Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/18/2023      Page: 8 of 11

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13323

        when the prisoner, here Sneed, had actual knowledge of the factual
        predicate for his claim. See Brown v. Barrow, 512 F.3d 1304, 1308
        (11th Cir. 2008).
               The factual predicate for Sneed’s claim is when the
        calculation of his time-served credit became final. Here, the factual
        predicate that forms the basis of Sneed’s claim is the Florida
        appellate court’s order clarifying that Sneed is entitled to a total of
        2,701 days’ credit, rather than 2,701 days’ credit in addition to the
        previously granted credit. See Robinson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,
        2018 WL 3854024, at *3 (11th Cir. 2018) (determining the factual
        predicate for a claim that DOC failed to apply gain and incentive
        time to be when tentative release day was calculated). That order
        was issued on January 5, 2012, and the mandate issued on March
        26, 2012.
                On May 15, 2012, Sneed filed a petition for a writ of
        mandamus in which he argued he had not received the correct
        credit for time served. That petition attached the Florida appellate
        court’s order clarifying that Sneed was entitled to a total of 2,701
        days’ credit, rather than an additional credit of 2,701 days above the
        1,265 days. Based on his mandamus petition, Sneed had actual
        knowledge of the factual predicate by at least May 15, 2012 and thus
        the one-year period began to run by May 15, 2012.
        B.     Tolling
               Next, we must assess whether the statute of limitations for
        Sneed’s § 2241 petition was tolled after May 15, 2012. Statutory
        tolling allows state prisoners to toll the limitation period while state
USCA11 Case: 22-13323      Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 12/18/2023     Page: 9 of 11

        22-13323               Opinion of the Court                        9

        post-conviction or other collateral review actions are pending. 28
        U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The one-year limitation period in § 2244(d)(1)
        is statutorily tolled during the pendency of “a properly filed
        application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with
        respect to the pertinent judgment or claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
        Where a petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle for
        raising a post-conviction challenge, such a petition tolls the
        limitation period. See Day v. Hall, 528 F.3d 1315, 1318 (11th Cir.
        2008) (challenging a decision of the Georgia parole board).
                In Florida, when a prisoner challenges a sentence-reducing
        credit determination, a writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy
        if the prisoner seeks immediate release, and a writ of mandamus is
        the proper remedy if the prisoner does not allege that he is entitled
        to immediate release. Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207, 1210 (Fla.
        2006). A post-conviction proceeding in Florida remains pending
        until the mandate issues. Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th
        Cir. 2000).
               Here, Sneed challenged the final time-served credit
        determination through a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in
        2012. A petition for a writ of mandamus in 2012 was the proper
        vehicle for Sneed’s challenge because he did not claim that he was
        entitled to immediate release. See Bush, 945 So. 2d at 1210. Thus,
        Sneed’s mandamus petition tolled the statute of limitations for
        bringing a federal habeas petition from May 2012 to June 2014,
        when the mandate issued finalizing that mandamus case. See Day,
        528 F.3d at 1318; Nyland, 216 F.3d at 1267.
USCA11 Case: 22-13323     Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/18/2023     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13323

               Absent the filing of an additional tolling motion between
        June 2014 and June 2015, the one-year limitation period expired in
        June 2015. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). A petition that is filed after a
        limitation period expires “cannot toll that period because there is
        no period remaining to be tolled.” Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331,
        1333 (11th Cir. 2001).
                Sneed does not contend that he properly filed any additional
        tolling motions from June 2014 until his state habeas petition was
        filed in 2019. Any petition that was filed after June 2015 cannot toll
        the limitation period because the period had already expired. See
        Tinker, 255 F.3d at 1333.
               Instead, Sneed argues, incorrectly, that the limitation clock
        restarted on the date in which he believes he was entitled to release
        because the appropriate state vehicle for him to challenge the final
        credit determination changed from mandamus (when he was
        seeking early release) to habeas (when he was seeking immediate
        release). Sneed, however, ignores the fact that the essence of his
        mandamus and habeas petitions are the same—Sneed claims that
        he is entitled to additional credit for time served above the 2,701
        days—and the factual predicate for his habeas petition occurred in
        2012 when he received his final credit determination. Sneed’s
        § 2241 petition is untimely.
        C.    Miscarriage-of-Justice Exception
               Under the federal miscarriage-of-justice exception, a
        petitioner may overcome the expiration of the statute of
        limitations if he makes “a convincing showing of actual
USCA11 Case: 22-13323     Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/18/2023    Page: 11 of 11

        22-13323               Opinion of the Court                       11

        innocence.” McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013). To
        establish actual innocence, a petitioner must show that, in light of
        new evidence, “no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to
        find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation marks
        omitted).
               Sneed has not proven that he was innocent of second-degree
        murder with a firearm. Therefore, he does not fall within the
        miscarriage-of-justice exception. See id. As such, the limitation
        period on Sneed’s claim expired in June 2015 and his federal habeas
        petition was untimely.
                              V.     CONCLUSION
              For the reasons stated above, the district court did not err in
        dismissing Sneed’s complaint as untimely.
              AFFIRMED.