Court Opinion

ID: 9389912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:00:45.41819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.442416
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-12996    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 04/26/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-12996
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       ONIEL PEDLEY,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
       CORRECTIONS,
       Secretary Florida Department of
       Corrections,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12996     Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 04/26/2023    Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                21-12996

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 9:21-cv-80616-KMM
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and GRANT, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Oniel Pedley, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal
       of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. 28 U.S.C.
       § 2244(d). We affirm.
              Pedley is serving a life sentence for three counts of at-
       tempted first-degree murder with a firearm, one count of robbery
       with a firearm, and one count of armed kidnapping. The trial court
       entered an amended sentence on May 21, 2012, and Pedley did not
       appeal. On April 15, 2014, Pedley moved for postconviction relief,
       Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850, which was denied, and his appeal was dis-
       missed on November 21, 2017.
               On November 18, 2020, Pedley moved the state court to ac-
       cept as timely filed an attached motion to correct an illegal sen-
       tence, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a), after he allegedly found the motion
       in his legal storage box and inquired about its status. The motion
       included a handwritten certificate of service that Pedley “hereby
       certif[ied] that [he] handed a true and correct copy of the instant
       motion to Pre-Trial Detention Center officials for mailing . . . on
       this 13 day of February 2013.” On March 3, 2021, the state court
USCA11 Case: 21-12996      Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 04/26/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       21-12996                Opinion of the Court                         3

       granted Pedley’s motion to accept “[b]ecause there is no time limit
       on filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule
       3.800(a)” and denied the motion to correct on the merits.
               On March 22, 2021, Pedley petitioned for a writ of habeas
       corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pedley argued that his petition was timely
       because he filed the motion to correct on February 13, 2013, which
       tolled the limitations period until the state court denied the motion
       on March 3, 2021.
               The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. The
       district court ruled that Pedley’s allegation that he filed a motion to
       correct on February 13, 2013, was unsupported by the record be-
       cause there were no docket entries in the state court before the
       limitations period elapsed on June 20, 2013, and because nothing in
       his motion to accept filed in 2020 supported his allegation that he
       delivered the motion to correct to officials for mailing in 2013.
              Pedley moved for reconsideration. Pedley asserted that he
       hand-delivered his motion to correct to officials at the pretrial de-
       tention center on February 13, 2013, by affixing postage and placing
       the addressed envelope between cell bars for an officer to pick up,
       which was the policy. He asserted that his only proof of timeliness
       was the dated certificate of service, which was sufficient under Flor-
       ida law. The district court ordered the state to respond and address
       whether evidence existed to support Pedley’s argument that he
       complied with the state “mailbox rule” in filing his motion to cor-
       rect.
USCA11 Case: 21-12996      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 04/26/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 21-12996

               The state responded that the detention center did not keep
       logs of outgoing mail except occasionally when an inmate would
       give mail to a counselor, and the policy was to destroy any infor-
       mation about mail after four years. Pedley’s only commissary
       charges in February 2013 were for a daily “sub-fee,” which was a
       daily cost that included housing, food, and clothing. Pedley’s com-
       missary charges did not include any amounts paid for postage. The
       district court denied the motion for reconsideration.
              The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred
       by dismissing Pedley’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as un-
       timely, which we review de novo. Bates v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.,
       964 F.3d 1326, 1328 (11th Cir. 2020). We review factual findings for
       clear error. Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234, 1252 (11th Cir. 2009).
       We will not “disturb a credibility determination unless it is so in-
       consistent or improbable on its face that no reasonable factfinder
       could accept it.” Riolo v. United States, 38 F.4th 956, 968 (11th Cir.
       2022).
              The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act imposes
       a one-year period of limitation for a petition for a writ of habeas
       corpus filed by a state prisoner. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limita-
       tions period runs from, among other things, the date a state pris-
       oner’s conviction becomes final, which is “at the conclusion of di-
       rect review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”
       Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Nix v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 393 F.3d 1235,
       1236–37 (11th Cir. 2004). “The time during which a properly filed
       application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with
USCA11 Case: 21-12996      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 04/26/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       21-12996               Opinion of the Court                         5

       respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be
       counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” 28
       U.S.C § 2244(d)(2). A state postconviction motion filed after the ex-
       piration of the federal limitations period does not revive it. Sibley
       v. Culliver, 377 F.3d 1196, 1204 (11th Cir. 2004).
               The district court did not err by dismissing Pedley’s petition
       for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. The state court made no
       ruling about whether Pedley’s motion to correct should be treated
       as having been filed in 2013, but instead reviewed it on the merits
       because there was no deadline for filing a motion to correct an ille-
       gal sentence, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a). In the absence of a finding
       of timeliness by the state court, the district court committed no
       clear error in determining that Pedley’s self-serving allegation—
       that he had filed a motion to correct in 2013, days before the limi-
       tations period expired, and “found” it more than seven years
       later—lacked any credible support in the record and that Pedley
       failed to establish that he properly filed a state postconviction mo-
       tion before the limitations period expired on June 20, 2013. See 28
       U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Nix, 393 F.3d at 1236–37. Because Pedley failed
       to file his petition for a writ of habeas corpus within the one-year
       federal limitations period, the district court did not err by dismiss-
       ing the petition as untimely.
             We AFFIRM the dismissal of Pedley’s petition for a writ of
       habeas corpus.