Roberts v. Sec'y of Fla. Dep't of Corr.

2 Citing cases

  1. King v. Jones

    Case No.: 3:15cv98/LAC/EMT (N.D. Fla. Jun. 2, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    motion was a request to reduce a legal sentence based on mercy or leniency and did not constitute an application for state postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment under § 2244(d)(2)); see alsoBaker v. McNeil, 439 F. App'x 786, 787-89 (11th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing Wall v. Kohli, 562 U.S. 545, 131 S. Ct. 1278, 179 L. Ed. 2d 252 (2011), and confirming the continued validity of Alexander, supra); see also, e.g., Rogers v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 4:14cv62/MW/GRJ, 2015 WL 3407439, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 26, 2015) (unpublished) (Rule 3.800(c) was not a tolling more under § 2244(d)(2)); Vining v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 1:13cv246/MMP/GRJ, 2015 WL 500597, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2015) (unpublished) (same); Morrison v. Crews, No. 3:14cv20/RV/CJK, 2014 WL 6633549, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2014) (unpublished) (same); Garrison v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 1:12cv145/LAC/GRJ, 2014 WL 2005651, at *1 (N.D. Fla. May 16, 2014) (unpublished) (same); Roberts v. Sec'y of Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:13cv82/WS/EMT, 2014 WL 28796, at *3 n.3 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2014) (unpublished) (same). Respondent contends that the state habeas petition was not "properly filed" for purposes of statutory tolling (see ECF No. 15 at 3-4).

  2. Barry v. Crews

    Case No.: 5:14cv20/RS/EMT (N.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2014)

    The instant case is distinguishable from prior cases in which this district court concluded that the petitioner's first Rule 3.850 motion was "pending" only until the date of rendition of the state circuit court's order striking the motion, even when the petitioner filed a timely amended motion. See, e.g., Roberts v. Sec'y of Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:13cv82/WS/EMT, 2014 WL 28796, at *3 n.4 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2014) (unpublished) (petitioner conceded untimeliness of § 2254 petition but argued entitlement to review under the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception); Fisher v. Tucker, No. 3:11cv241/RV/MD, 2012 WL 1903047 *3 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2012) (unpublished) (petitioner did not oppose respondent's untimeliness argument), Amended Report and Recommendation Adopted by 2012 WL 1901935 (N.D. Fla. May 24, 2012) (unpublished); Green v. Tucker, No. 3:10cv418/MCR/MD, 2011 WL 6942895, *3 (N.D. Fla. Nov.17, 2011) (unpublished) (same), Report and Recommendation Adopted by 2012 WL 13552 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2012) (unpublished); Smith v. Buss, No. 3:09cv278/MCR/EMT, 2011 WL 818157, * 6 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2011) (unpublished) (conclusion that petitioner's first Rule 3.850 motion was "pending" only until the date of rendition of the state circuit court's order striking the motion, even when the petitioner filed a timely amended motion, was not dispositive of timeliness issue), Report and Recommendation Adop