Jones v. Nagle, 349 F.3d 1305, 11th Cir. (2003)

349 F.
3d 1305
Alfred Lee JONES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,

v.
John NAGLE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-14498.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

November 6, 2003.
Thomas Martele Goggans (Court-Appointed), Montgomery, AL, for

Petitioner-Appellant.
Nathan A. Forrester, Jean Alexandra Therkelsen, Montgomery, AL, for
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama.
Before DUBINA, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner-appellant Alfred Lee Jones, an Alabama prisoner, appeals the

dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as time-barred under the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Pub.L. No. 104-32, 110
Stat. 1214 (1996). The issue on appeal is whether the district court properly
tolled the statute of limitations under the AEDPA.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1997, Jones pleaded guilty in Alabama state court to two counts of

distribution of a controlled substance and one count of unlawful possession of a
controlled substance. Jones was sentenced to three life terms, and the certificate
for final judgment was issued on December 8, 1998. On February 2, 1999,
Jones filed a Rule 32 petition in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama,
attacking his guilty plea.1 The circuit court denied the petition on August 12,
1999. According to Jones, however, he did not receive notice that this petition
had been denied until February 4, 2000. Jones appealed on March 13, 2000, but
on March 22, 2000, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the
appeal as untimely.2 Jones then filed a second Rule 32 petition on November
14, 2000, which was denied on March 6, 2001. Jones did not appeal. Jones filed
his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in the district court on
June 4, 2001.
3
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, which found that
Jones's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under the AEDPA. The AEDPA
requires a state prisoner seeking a federal habeas corpus remedy to file his
federal petition within one year of the "conclusion of direct review or the
expiration of the time for seeking such review." 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A).
The one-year time limit, however, is tolled during the time in which a petitioner
could properly file an application for State post-conviction or other collateral
review. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2); Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 217, 122
S.Ct. 2134, 2136, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002). The magistrate judge found that 383
days elapsed from the time Jones's conviction was final on December 8, 1998,
until Jones filed his habeas corpus petition on June 4, 2001.3 The district court
adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and entered judgment against
Jones.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo the district court's determination that a petition for federal
habeas corpus relief was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). Steed v. Head,
219 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000). Jones argues, and the state now
concedes on appeal, that the magistrate judge erred in not tolling the time
period for the forty-two days during which Jones could have appealed the
denial of his second Rule 32 petition.
According to the AEDPA, "[t]he time during which a properly filed application
for State post-conviction or other collateral review with 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). In Carey v. Saffold,
the Supreme Court interpreted the word "pending" to "cover the time between a
lower state court's decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state
court." 536 U.S. 214, 217, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 2136, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002). "
[U]ntil the application has achieved final resolution through the State's postconviction procedures, by definition it remains `pending.'" 536 U.S. at 220, 122
S.Ct. at 2138. Because Jones could have filed a notice of appeal from the
dismissal of his second Rule 32 petition from March 6, 2001, to April 17, 2001,
we agree that the AEDPA should have been tolled for that time.
Had the magistrate judge tolled the statute during these forty-two days, Jones's
habeas petition would have been timely. 4 The state, however, now claims for
the first time on appeal that the magistrate judge incorrectly tolled Jones's
claim between September 23, 1999, and March 22, 2000.5 In response, Jones's
reply brief reiterates his position that because he did not receive notice of the
August 12, 1999, denial of his Rule 32 petition until February 4, 2000, the
magistrate judge properly tolled that time period.
Equitable tolling is "appropriate when a movant untimely files because of

extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable
even with diligence." Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th
Cir.1999). The petitioner bears the burden of establishing that equitable tolling
is justified. Drew v. Dep't of Corrections, 297 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir.2002).
Jones repeatedly has claimed that he did not receive timely notice that his first
Rule 32 petition had been denied on August 12, 1999.6 Prior to its brief in this
court, the state never challenged Jones's position that he first received notice on
February 4, 2000. Because the state did not dispute Jones's equitable tolling
argument in the district court, the state has waived its opportunity to address
this argument now. Shukwit v. United States, 973 F.2d 903, 904 (11th Cir.1992)
(holding that when the government does not raise a procedural bar issue in the
district court, it is waived).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Jones filed his habeas corpus
petition in 341 days, well within the one-year time limitation imposed under the
AEDPA.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Notes:
1
Jones proceeded pro se until this court appointed counsel to represent him in
this appeal
A petitioner has forty-two days to appeal the dismissal of a Rule 32 petition.

Ala. R.App. P. 4(a)
The magistrate judge explained that he calculated the 383 days as follows. The
clock ran for 56 days from the time Jones's conviction was final on December
8, 1998, until the time he filed his first Rule 32 petition on February 2, 1999.
After Jones filed the Rule 32 petition, the clock tolled until March 22, 2000,
when the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Jones's appeal of the
trial court's dismissal of his first Rule 32 petition. The clock started again on
March 23, 2000, and ran for 237 days until November 14, 2000, when Jones
filed his second Rule 32 petition. Jones's second Rule 32 petition tolled the
clock until the state court denied it on March 6, 2001, at which time the clock
began again. The clock ran for 90 days until Jones filed this habeas corpus
action on June 4, 2001. When the magistrate judge added the time periods in
which the clock had run 56 days, 237 days, and 90 days the court
determined that Jones's habeas petition was filed in 383 days, which was 18
days past the AEDPA time limit
4
By tolling the forty-two days, Jones's habeas petition would have been filed in
341 days, well within the AEDPA's one-year time limit
Both parties now agree that the AEDPA should have been tolled from August
12, 1999, through September 23, 1999, because Jones could have filed an
appeal for forty-two days after his Rule 32 petition had been denied. Therefore,
the critical issue becomes whether the time between September 23, 1999, and
March 22, 2000, is tolled
In his habeas petition, Jones stated that "on 1st Rule 32 was not notified by
Court until time limit run (sic) out." In May 2002, Jones filed an affidavit where
he again claimed "[p]rior to February 4, 2000, I had no knowledge the Rule 32
Petition was denied August 12, 1999." After the magistrate judge issued a
report and recommendation, Jones again stated that he first "received notice on
February 4, 2000."

Jones v. Nagle, 349 F.3d 1305, 11th Cir. (2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jones v. Nagle, 349 F.3d 1305, 11th Cir. (2003)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jones v. Nagle, 349 F.3d 1305, 11th Cir. (2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

349 F.

Alfred Lee JONES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Thomas Martele Goggans (Court-Appointed), Montgomery, AL, for

Petitioner-appellant Alfred Lee Jones, an Alabama prisoner, appeals the

In 1997, Jones pleaded guilty in Alabama state court to two counts of

Equitable tolling is "appropriate when a movant untimely files because of

REVERSED and REMANDED.

A petitioner has forty-two days to appeal the dismissal of a Rule 32 petition.

You might also like