The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER and FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with an application for petition of writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the court is respondent's motion to dismiss the pending habeas petition as barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner has filed an opposition to the motion and respondent has filed a reply. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that respondent's motion be granted.
II. Statutory Filing Deadlines
On April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") was enacted. Section 2244(d)(1) of Title 8 of the United States Code 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.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
For purposes of the statute of limitations analysis, the relevant chronology of this case is as follows:
1. Petitioner was convicted on February 29, 2008, of one count of attempted murder, and the following enhancements were found true: petitioner personally used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence. (Respondent's Lodge Document ("LD") 1.) Petitioner was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. (LD 1-2.)
2. Petitioner filed a timely appeal of the conviction. On August 4, 2009, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District affirmed petitioner's judgment. (LD 2.) 3. On September 15, 2009, petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme ...