United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
MORALES HOWARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Freddie Lee Williams, an inmate of the Florida penal system,
initiated this action on May 18, 2015,  by filing a pro
se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. He filed an Amended Petition (Doc. 5) on
September 27, 2015. In the Amended Petition, Williams
challenges a 2004 state court (Duval County, Florida)
judgment of conviction for burglary of a dwelling.
Respondents have submitted a memorandum in opposition to the
Amended Petition. See Respondents' Motion to
Dismiss (Response; Doc. 19) with exhibits (Resp. Ex.). On
October 18, 2016, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause
and Notice to Petitioner (Doc. 12), admonishing Williams
regarding his obligations and giving Williams a time frame in
which to submit a reply. On February 2, 2018, Williams
replied. See Reply to Respondents' Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 35). This case is ripe for review.
One-Year Limitations Period
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)
imposes a one-year statute of limitations on petitions for
writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, 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 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 by 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
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
contend that Williams has not complied with the one-year
period of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
The following procedural history is relevant to the one-year
limitations issue. On November 17, 2003, the State of Florida
charged Williams with burglary of a dwelling. See
Resp. Ex. 2 at 9, Information. Williams proceeded to a jury
trial in May 2004, see Resp. Exs. 4, 5, Transcripts
of the Jury Trial (Tr.), at the conclusion of which, on May
19, 2004, the jury found him guilty, as charged, see
Resp. Ex. 2 at 117, Verdict; Tr. at 341-42. On June 17, 2004,
the court sentenced Williams to a term of imprisonment of
eighteen years. See Resp. Ex. 2 at 142-47, Judgment.
On June 6, 2005, the appellate court affirmed Williams'
conviction and sentence per curiam, and the mandate issued on
June 22, 2005. See Resp. Ex. 9.
conviction became final on Sunday, September 4, 2005 (90 days
from June 6, 2005). See Close v. United States, 336
F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2003) ("According to rules of
the Supreme Court, a petition for certiorari must be
filed within 90 days of the appellate court's entry of
judgment on the appeal or, if a motion for rehearing is
timely filed, within 90 days of the appellate court's
denial of that motion."). Because Williams'
conviction was after April 24, 1996, the effective
date of the AEDPA, Williams had one year from the date his
conviction became final to file the federal petition
(Tuesday, September 6, 2006).The Petition, filed ...