United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. Magnuson, United States District Court Judge.
matter is before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Pet. (Docket No. 1).)
For the reasons that follow, the Petition is denied.
April 11, 2011, Petitioner Nathon Alan Hale entered into a
nolo contendere plea to charges of attempted burglary of a
dwelling, first degree petit theft, and criminal mischief.
(App'x Ex. 5 at 3.) The trial court sentenced him as a
prison release reoffender to 60 months on the first charge, a
consecutive 60 months on the second charge, and 42 days on
the third charge with 42 days' credit for time already
served. (Id. at 8.)
September 9, 2011, Hale filed a motion for postconviction
relief alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to counsel him on the consequences of his nolo
contendere plea and failing to contest the State's
evidence against him. Hale also moved to withdraw his plea.
(App'x Ex. 1 at 3, 5, 7; App'x Ex. 3.) Hale then
“voluntarily withdr[e]w his entire . . . motion”
at a postconviction evidentiary hearing for an unknown
reason. (Id.) Based on Hale's withdrawal, the
trial court dismissed the matter on November 19, 2012.
March 26, 2014, Hale filed a motion to correct an illegal
sentence, arguing that his consecutive sentences as a prison
release reoffender violated Florida law and that these
sentences should run concurrently. (App'x Ex. 4 at 1-2.)
The trial court denied the motion on April 4, 2014,
concluding that Hale's prison release reoffender sentence
was not enhanced and that a consecutive sentence was proper.
(App'x Ex. 5 at 1-2.)
filed the instant Petition on October 15, 2014. Hale again
asserts that he received an illegal enhanced sentence. (Pet.
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., a
federal court's “review is greatly circumscribed
and is highly deferential to the state courts.”
Crawford v. Head, 311 F.3d 1288, 1295 (11th Cir.
2002). Indeed, AEDPA “modified a federal habeas
court's role in reviewing state prisoner applications in
order to prevent federal habeas ‘retrials' and to
ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the
extent possible under law.” Bell v. Cone, 535
U.S. 685, 693 (2002) (citation omitted). The AEDPA restricts
the Court's review to state-court judgments that:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Further, § 2254 states that
“a determination of a factual issue made by a State
court shall be presumed to be correct.” Id.
§ 2254(e)(1). The burden is on the petitioner to
“rebut the presumption of correctness by clear and
convincing evidence.” Id.
AEDPA requires that a habeas petition be timely filed and
that the petitioner have exhausted his remedies with respect
to the relief he seeks.