FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therein, petitioner challenges a 2007 judgment of conviction and twenty year prison sentence entered against her in the Sacramento County Superior Court following her plea of no contest to carjacking, burglary, robbery and related offenses. Before the court is respondent's motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it was filed beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Petitioner has filed an opposition to the motion and respondent has filed a reply.
On February 2, 2007, petitioner appeared in the Sacramento County Superior Court and was sentenced to a determinate state prison term of twenty years. (Lod. Doc. 1.*fn1
Petitioner did not appeal her judgment or conviction and sentence. However, petitioner filed the following four post-conviction petitions seeking habeas relief in state court:
March 3, 2008*fn2 Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with the Sacramento County Superior Court. (Lod. Doc. 2.) Therein, petitioner claimed that she received ineffective assistance of counsel due to the frequent substitutions of counsel and due to her counsel's failure to provide the court with hospital records which would have supported her placement in a substance abuse program rather than in state prison.
July 21, 2008 Petition denied. (Lod. Doc. 3.)
Second Petition February 23, 2009 Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District. (Lod. Doc. 4.) Therein, petitioner claimed that her counsel failed "to introduce critical mitigating evidence at sentencing hearing." (Id. at 3.)
March 5, 2009 Petition denied. (Lod. Doc. 5.)
Third Petition April 6, 2009*fn3 Petition for review filed with the California Supreme Court. (Lod. Doc. 6.)
June 10, 2009 The petition for review was summarily denied. (Lod. Doc. 7.)
May 25, 2010 Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with the Sacramento County Superior Court. Therein, petitioner claimed that "[t]he trial court erred by failing to stay punishment on Count 15 enhancement (regarding separate victim rule) pursuant to both section ...