Background
A Florida jury convicted Brett W. Cormier of three grand-theft offenses arising from his use of investors’ money for personal expenses. He received a 15-year prison sentence and was ordered to pay $835,000 in restitution. After his conviction became final and a motion to reduce his prison term was denied, Cormier mailed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion challenging part of the restitution award. The state court never docketed that motion.
Cormier later pursued state post-conviction relief and, in January 2023, filed a federal habeas petition asserting insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a due-process violation. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely, ruling that the restitution motion did not toll the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year limitations period because it did not challenge the conviction or custodial sentence relevant to federal habeas relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, resolving an issue of first impression in the circuit. It held that a state motion challenging only restitution is not an application for collateral review “with respect to the pertinent judgment” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) and therefore does not toll AEDPA’s limitations period. Although restitution forms part of a criminal sentence, the pertinent judgment for habeas purposes is the judgment authorizing the petitioner’s custody.
The court reasoned that federal habeas corpus addresses unlawful custody, not noncustodial components of a sentence such as restitution. Because Cormier’s Rule 3.800(a) motion did not challenge his imprisonment, it did not pause the federal limitations clock, and his habeas petition was untimely. The court amended the certificate of appealability to encompass Cormier’s underlying constitutional claims but did not decide their merits; it also treated his equitable-tolling and actual-innocence arguments as outside the certificate’s scope.
Key Takeaways
- A state collateral motion directed solely at restitution does not toll AEDPA’s one-year deadline for a federal habeas petition challenging custody.
- For purposes of Section 2244(d)(2), the “pertinent judgment” is the judgment authorizing the petitioner’s detention, not every component of the criminal sentence.
- Because Cormier’s petition remained time-barred, the court did not reach his ineffective-assistance or due-process claims and denied his motion to amend as futile.
Why It Matters
The published decision establishes a clear Eleventh Circuit rule for prisoners pursuing parallel challenges to custodial and financial portions of a sentence. A pending state challenge to restitution alone will not preserve the deadline for filing a federal habeas petition attacking the conviction or term of imprisonment.
Practitioners therefore cannot assume that litigation over any component of a criminal judgment suspends AEDPA’s limitations period. Tolling depends on whether the state proceeding concerns the judgment that authorizes the petitioner’s custody.