United States District Court, S.D. Florida
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE STATE HABEAS PETITION -
28 U.S.C. § 2554
Petitioner, Vedrick Lamonte Symonette, has
filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the
constitutionality of criminal charges filed against him in
Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, No. F18022714. He challenges
the legality of his arrest and asserts that he should be
allowed to represent himself in state court. [ECF 1].
cause has been referred to the undersigned for consideration
and report, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C);
S.D. Fla. Local Rule 1(f) governing Magistrate Judges; S.D.
Fla. Admin. Order 2019-02; and the Rules Governing Habeas
Corpus Petitions in the United States District Courts.
it is evident that the petition is premature, no order to
show cause has been issued. See Rule 4, Rules
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. See also Broadwater
v. United States, 292 F.3d 1302, 1303-04 (11th Cir.
to the docket, the state charged Petitioner with sexual
battery and molestation on a child aged 12 to 17. [Miami-Dade
Circuit Court Docket, No. F18022714]. On November 13, 2018, the
state court conducted the first appearance and bond hearing.
[Id. at DE#2]. Petitioner is represented by defense
counsel. [Id. at DE#63]. Petitioner entered a plea
of not guilty. [Id. at DE#6]. He proceeded to trial
on June 12, 2019. [Id. at DE#124]. On June 13, 2019,
the jury found him guilty and the state court entered a
judgment of guilty on June 25, 2019. [Id. at DE#
126, 143]. On July 9, 2019, Petitioner filed a pro
se motion for new trial, which remains pending.
[Id. at 145].
April 24, 2019, Petitioner came to this court filing the
instant petition challenging the state court proceedings in
No. F18022714. [ECF 1].
Discussion and Applicable Law
the Petitioner has not been convicted of the charged
offenses, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
court lacks jurisdiction under principles of abstention to
the extent that the relief the Petitioner seeks would
interfere with the state court's judicial process or
overturn a state court decision on the merits. See
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971); see, e.g,
Hollins v. Wessel, 819 F.2d 1073, 1074 (11th Cir. 1987)
(“The jurisdiction possessed by district courts is
strictly original . . . and review of final judgments of a
state court in judicial proceedings is reserved to the
Supreme Court of the United States.”). Thus, the
principle of abstention requires this court to abstain from
interfering with the Petitioner's ongoing state criminal
without prejudice is appropriate in this case. Review of the
current record reveals that Petitioner was convicted on June
25, 2019 and he filed a pro se motion for new trial
on July 9, 2019. At this point in his state court
proceedings, his judgment of conviction is not final and,
therefore, not ripe for federal attack by way of § 2254.
The state trial court has not ruled on his motion for new
trial and he has not yet filed a direct appeal.
this federal petition, when filed, was timely, in order for
any future federal petition not to be time-barred, Petitioner
is advised that he must comply with the federal one-year
statute of limitation requirement. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)-(2). For federal limitations purposes,
Petitioner's conviction of the 2018 charges is not final.
Therefore, the federal statute of limitations has not begun
to run. Further, the statute of limitations is tolled while a
properly filed application for state post- conviction or
other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. §
Petitioner is, however, cautioned to be aware of the time
limitation for any subsequent habeas corpus petition filed in
this court. Although he has sufficient time to return to this
court within the one-year limitations period after his state
court remedies have been fully and properly exhausted on any
and all claims he might want to raise ...