Theresa Batson v. Florida Department of Corrections

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 establishes a oneyear statute of limitations for an individual in state custody to file a federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). As relevant here, that clock runs from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A). If an individual secures a new judgment amending her convictions or custodial sentence during direct review, that restarts the limitations period. Had this case arisen in the Sixth Circuit, petitioner would have gotten relief. The rule in that circuit is, regardless of how a state trial court labels a judgment, an amended judgment changing an individual’s “conditions of confinement” resets the federal limitations period. Crangle v. Kelly, 838 F.3d 673, 680 (6th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). In the Eleventh Circuit, however, a state trial court’s designation of a judgment as “nunc pro tunc” to the petitioner’s initial conviction prevents the limitations period from resetting, no matter the substance of that judgment. Osbourne v. Secretary, Florida Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2020). The issue in this case is whether a state court can prevent the federal limitations period in Section 2244(d)(1)(A) from restarting by labeling an amended judgment nunc pro tunc when that judgment substantively alters a petitioner’s conviction and sentence. The question presented is: Whether a state court’s entry of an amended judgment nunc pro tunc prevents that judgment from restarting the federal statute of limitations period for filing a habeas petition in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).