Court Opinion

ID: 9365227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 15:00:38.726835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.818225
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-11961    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 01/23/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-11961
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MARIO ALBO LARA,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
       ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF FLORIDA,
       STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                                Respondents-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 21-11961       Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 01/23/2023      Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   21-11961

                      D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-22121-KMW
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Antonio Lara appeals the district court’s dismissal of his sec-
       tion 2254 habeas petition. Because his brief fails to address the sole
       issue we certified for appeal, we affirm.
                Lara is serving a life sentence for convictions in Florida state
       court for first degree murder, second degree murder, and sexual
       battery. Although Lara’s convictions became final in 1998, he filed
       a 2011 motion in the state circuit court to correct his sentence. The
       state circuit court granted partial relief, and the District Court of
       Appeal affirmed in March 2013. See Lara v. State (Lara I), 109
       So. 3d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013). In September 2012, Lara de-
       livered a second motion for state postconviction relief to prison of-
       ficials to file in state court, although it apparently was not docketed
       until April 2015. The state circuit court denied this second motion
       for postconviction relief, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed
       in November 2015. See Lara v. State (Lara II), 179 So. 3d 333 (Fla.
       Dist. Ct. App. 2015).
               In June 2016, Lara filed a section 2254 habeas petition in the
       district court. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing
       Lara’s habeas petition as untimely because, even though Lara I was
       a new sentence and reset the statutory deadline, Lara had not filed
       his petition within a year of when the new sentence became final.
USCA11 Case: 21-11961      Document: 31-1       Date Filed: 01/23/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       21-11961                Opinion of the Court                          3

       The magistrate judge also recommended finding that Lara II did
       not toll Lara’s time to file a habeas petition. Even though the Flor-
       ida Department of Corrections had stamped the motion in Lara II
       as received in September 2012, the magistrate judge explained, that
       motion did not toll the statutory deadline that Lara I triggered be-
       cause it was not docketed until 2015.
              The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
       recommendation and dismissed Lara’s habeas petition as untimely.
       We issued a certificate of appealability on a single question:
       whether the district court misapplied the prisoner mailbox rule to
       Lara’s second motion for state postconviction relief and thus erro-
       neously concluded that Lara II did not toll Lara’s eligibility to bring
       a habeas petition.
              Lara initially failed to file an appellate brief, so we dismissed
       his appeal for lack of prosecution. The dismissal, though, didn’t
       last long. Lara moved to reinstate his appeal, and we granted his
       motion and set a briefing schedule.
              But when Lara filed his opening brief on appeal, it did not
       address the certified question. Instead, Lara argued, again, that we
       should reinstate his appeal—something we’d already done. And
       even though the Secretary of the Florida Department of Correc-
       tions pointed out Lara’s failure to address the district court’s inter-
       pretation of the prisoner mailbox rule, Lara did not file a reply brief
       or move to file a corrected brief.
USCA11 Case: 21-11961         Document: 31-1        Date Filed: 01/23/2023         Page: 4 of 5

       4                          Opinion of the Court                      21-11961

               To preserve an issue on appeal, Lara had to “‘plainly and
       prominently’ raise it by ‘devoting a discrete section of his argu-
       ment’ to the claim” in his opening brief. United States v. Monte-
       negro, 1 F.4th 940, 944 n.3 (11th Cir. 2021); see also Atkins v. Sin-
       gletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (explaining that ha-
       beas claims not addressed on appeal are forfeited). Here, Lara’s
       brief does not even mention the district court’s order, so he has
       forfeited any challenge to it. The argument section of Lara’s brief
       is devoted entirely to explaining why his appeal should be rein-
       stated. But we already reinstated his appeal; the sole issue Lara was
       directed to address was whether the district court misapplied the
       prisoner mailbox rule and therefore erred by finding his habeas pe-
       tition untimely. Lara didn’t even file a reply brief after the Secre-
       tary pointed out that he hadn’t addressed the timeliness issue. By
       failing to address that issue, Lara has now abandoned it. See Atkins,
       965 F.2d at 955 n.1. We must affirm.1

       1
         Although, “[t]ypically, issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are
       deemed abandoned,” we do “have the ability to resurrect forfeited issues sua
       sponte in extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th
       860, 871–72 (11th Cir.) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022).
       Here, the circumstances of Lara’s case are not extraordinary because, even if
       timely, his habeas claims are jurisdictionally barred, not cognizable, and have
       not been exhausted in the Florida state courts. See 8 U.S.C. § 1228(a)(3)(B)
       (“Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Attorney General
       to effect the removal of any alien sentenced to actual incarceration, before re-
       lease from the penitentiary or correctional institution where such alien is con-
       fined.”); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (“[W]e conclude that
       state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any
USCA11 Case: 21-11961         Document: 31-1         Date Filed: 01/23/2023         Page: 5 of 5

       21-11961                   Opinion of the Court                                5

               AFFIRMED.

       constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established
       appellate review process.”); Jordan v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 485 F.3d 1351, 1356
       (11th Cir. 2007) (“[O]ur precedent forbids granting habeas relief based upon a
       claim of actual innocence, anyway, at least in non-capital cases.”).