Miller v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs.

• Decision Date: 04 January 2022
• Docket Number: 21-10233
• Parties: ARSELES D. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

ARSELES D. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 21-10233

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

January 4, 2022

DO NOT PUBLISH

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-01130-TPB-AEP

1

Before Jordan, Newsom, and Hull, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Arseles Devon Miller, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Miller's second § 2254 petition was an unauthorized successive petition. After review, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2005, a Florida trial court sentenced Miller to a total of 45 years' imprisonment after a jury convicted him of one count of delivery of cocaine and two counts of trafficking in cocaine. In its judgment, the state court included that Miller should receive 837 days of credit for time he had spent in jail before the sentence was imposed.

After seeking post-conviction relief in state court, Miller filed his initial § 2254 habeas corpus petition in December 2008. He raised two claims of state-law trial error, a Confrontation Clause claim, five claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and three claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court determined that his trial-error claims were procedurally defaulted and the state court reasonably applied federal law in denying the remaining claims. The district court denied his § 2254 petition with prejudice.

2

In 2012, Miller moved the state trial court under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) to correct his sentence to reflect additional days that he served in jail before sentencing. The state court did not receive the Rule 3.800 motion until 2018, but it found that Miller properly filed his motion under Rule 3.800 because Miller's Rule 3.800 motion contained a stamp and a certificate of service stating that it was provided to jail officials for mailing on December 16,

2012.^[1]

On November 21, 2018, the state court granted Miller's Rule 3.800 motion in part and directed the clerk of court to prepare "an amended judgment and sentence to reflect that Defendant is entitled to 870 days of jail credit." The state court then issued an amended judgment, which, as before, reflected Miller's 2005 convictions. The amended judgment contained the same sentence for those convictions-a total of 45 years of imprisonment, effective August 1, 2005-but stated that Miller was entitled to 870 days of jail credit, instead of the original 837 days.

In May 2020, Miller filed his second § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He raised five grounds of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and asserted that the cumulative

3

effect of his appellate counsel's errors was the denial of a fair appeal process.

The district court found that Miller's § 2254 petition was a successive habeas petition that had not been authorized by this Court. Accordingly, it dismissed his § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

II. DISCUSSION

Section 2244(b) provides that a habeas corpus petitioner seeking to file a second or successive petition in the district court must first "move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).^[2]...