Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Conchas v. Walker

May 26, 2010

RUBEN PAUL CONCHAS, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES J. WALKER, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.*fn1 Petitioner challenges his November 2000 conviction and sentencing. Presently pending is respondent's motion, filed September 30, 2009, to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Dkt. No. 9.) Petitioner has filed an opposition and supplement thereto. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 15.) Respondent has filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 14.) For the following reasons, the court orders that respondent's motion be granted.

BACKGROUND

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA" or "Act"). The Act applies to all petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997); Ainsworth v. Calderon, 138 F.3d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1998). Therefore, it applies to the instant petition filed July 13, 2009.*fn2

Section 2244(d)(1) provides:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of --

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

Section 2244(d)(2) provides that "the time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward" the limitations period.

The following facts and chronology are relevant to the instant statute of limitations analysis:

1. On November 30, 2000, in Placer County Superior Court, petitioner pled no contest to two counts of voluntary manslaughter, hit and run, resisting arrest, and evading a peace officer. (See Lodged Document ("LD") No. 1.)*fn3 Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate state prison term of twenty-five years. (Id.)

2. On June 19, 2001, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the judgment of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.