Hardwick v. Singletary, 97-2319
Decision Date | 04 September 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 97-2319,97-2319 |
Citation | 122 F.3d 935,1997 WL 555715 |
Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 535 John Gary HARDWICK, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Curtis M. French, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner John Gary Hardwick moves for remand and relinquishment of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, a certificate of probable cause to appeal the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The petition initially was filed in federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 20, 1995. The district court denied the petition on February 24, 1997 and, applying the relevant provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 120 Stat. 1214 (1996), now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (Supp.1997), 1 issued a certificate of appealability as to three of Hardwick's twenty claims for relief. Hardwick moves for remand on the ground that the district court erroneously analyzed his application to appeal under the AEDPA. Hardwick argues that the district court should have applied pre-AEDPA law regarding the issuance of a certificate of probable cause. In support of this argument, he avers that our recent en banc decision in Hunter v. United States, 101 F.3d 1565 (11th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1695, 137 L.Ed.2d 822 (1997), has been overruled in part by the Supreme Court's decision in Lindh v. Murphy, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997).
To the extent that our decision in Hunter stands for the proposition that the AEDPA provisions governing certificates of appealability apply to § 2254 cases pending on the date of the AEDPA's enactment, we agree that the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Lindh effectively abrogates and supplants that portion of Hunter. Lindh states that "the new provisions of chapter 153 generally apply only to cases filed after the Act became effective." Id. at ----, 117 S.Ct. at 2068. Moreover, in reversing the Seventh Circuit's decision in Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856 (7th Cir.1996), the Court expressly noted our reliance in Hunter on the reasoning and analysis underlying the Seventh Circuit's holding. See Lindh, --- U.S. at ----, 117 S.Ct. at 2061. We therefore hold, consistent with the clear directive of the Supreme Court in Lindh, that the AEDPA does not apply to habeas petitions that were pending at the time the new law took effect. To the extent that our decision in Hunter is inconsistent with the foregoing statement, it no longer represents the law of this circuit. See United States v. Brown, 117 F.3d 471, 479 n. 7 (11th Cir.1997) ( ); accord Martin v. Bissonette, 118 F.3d 871, 875 (1st Cir.1997) (); Green v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 1115, 1119 (5th Cir.1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hardwick v. Crosby
... ... James CROSBY, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee ... No. 97-2319 ... United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit ... January 31, 2003 ... Page 1128 ... COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... Page 1129 ... Singletary ... Page 1158 ... 122 F.3d 935, 936 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam). On remand, the district judge again relied on AEDPA and granted a certificate ... ...
-
Peoples v. Haley
...430, 431 n.2 (2d Cir. 1997) (same); United States v. Skandier, 125 F.3d 178, 179-82 (3rd Cir. 1997) (same); Hardwick v. Singletary, 122 F.3d 935, 936 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), modified on reh'g per curiam, 126 F.3d 1312, 1313 (11th Cir. 1997)(same); Arredondo v. United States, 120 F.3d 639,......
-
Peoples v. Haley
...F.3d 430, 431 n. 2 (2d Cir.1997) (same); United States v. Skandier, 125 F.3d 178, 179-82 (3rd Cir.1997) (same); Hardwick v. Singletary, 122 F.3d 935, 936 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), modified on reh'g per curiam, 126 F.3d 1312, 1313 (11th Cir.1997)(same); Arredondo v. United States, 120 F.3d 6......
-
Slack v McDaniel
...States v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d 1363, 1364, n. 2 (CA10 1997); United States v. Skandier, 125 F.3d 178, 179_182 (CA3 1997); Hardwick v. Singletary, 122 F.3d 935, 936, vacated in part on other grounds, 126 F.3d 1312 (CA11 1997); Arredondo v. United States, 120 F.3d 639, 640 (CA6 1997); United Sta......