United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
G. BYRON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (“Petition, ” Doc. 1) filed by Petitioner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents filed a
Response to Petition (“Response, ” Doc. 23) and a
Supplemental Response to Petition (Doc. 30). Petitioner filed
a Reply (Doc. 28) and a Supplemental Reply (Doc. 32).
pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court
sentenced him on January 25, 2013. (Doc. 25-1 at 16-23).
Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
October 22, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for
postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850. (Id. at 25-70). On January 6,
2014, the trial court dismissed the motion without prejudice
with leave to file an amended Rule 3.850 motion.
(Id. at 77-78). Petitioner filed an amended Rule
3.850 motion, which the trial court denied on June 19, 2014.
(Id. at 123-33). The Fifth District Court of Appeal
(“Fifth DCA”) affirmed per curiam on
April 7, 2015, and the mandate issued on June 4, 2015.
(Id. at 236, 243).
to 28 U.S.C. § 2244,
(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of -
(A) the date on which the judgment of conviction became final
by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the
time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
(2) The 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