McMillian v. Dixon

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses Anthony McMillian’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his Florida state-court convictions and sentence. The magistrate judge recommends granting the motion to dismiss because the petition was filed after the AEDPA limitations period expired, dismissing the petition with prejudice, denying a certificate of appealability, and closing the case.

Holdings

1. An elaborated written opinion that expressly addresses questions of law within the four corners of the opinion gives the Florida Supreme Court discretionary jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), even without an express and direct conflict with another decision.
2. Because McMillian could have sought discretionary review in the Florida Supreme Court but did not, his judgment became final on December 16, 2020, when the time for seeking that review expired.
3. The federal petition was untimely because the AEDPA one-year limitations period expired on December 16, 2021, before McMillian filed his April 13, 2022, state post-conviction motion; the later motion therefore could not toll or revive the limitations period.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the First District Court of Appeal's elaborated written opinion gave the Florida Supreme Court discretionary jurisdiction to review the state-court judgment.
2. When McMillian's state judgment became final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
3. Whether McMillian's April 13, 2022, Rule 3.850 motion tolled the AEDPA limitations period.
4. Whether an evidentiary hearing was warranted.
5. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue.