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.

Jesse L. Youngblood v. R.J. Donovan Warden

August 3, 2012

JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, PETITIONER,
v.
R.J. DONOVAN WARDEN,
RESPONDENT.



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 his 2003 judgment of conviction for second degree robbery entered against him in the Butte County Superior Court. Respondent has moved to dismiss the pending federal habeas petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations.*fn1 Petitioner has filed an opposition to the motion and respondent has filed a reply.

BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2003, following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted in the Butte County Superior Court of second degree robbery and grand theft. (Lod. Doc. 1 and 2, lodged Jan. 31, 2012.) Petitioner was sentenced to a term of thirty-three years to life imprisonment on the second degree robbery with a concurrent sentence of the same length on the grand theft, the latter of which was stayed. (Id. at 1.) On February 24, 2005, petitioner's grand theft conviction was reversed on appeal by the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District. (Lod. Doc. 2 at 1.) The remainder of petitioner's judgment of conviction was affirmed by that court with no substantive change in petitioner's sentence . (Id. at 3.) Petitioner did not file a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.

On February 2, 2004, petitioner filed his first state habeas petition with the San Joaquin County Superior Court challenging his judgment of conviction as well as the conditions of his confinement at Deuel Vocational Institution and the Butte County Jail.*fn2 (Lod. Doc. 3.) On April 2, 2004, the San Joaquin County Superior Court ordered that petitioner challenge to his judgment of conviction entered in the Butte County Superior Court as well as his claims involving the conditions of his confinement at the Butte County Jail be transferred to the Butte County Superior Court. (Lod. Doc. 4.) On April 23, 2004, the Butte County Superior Court denied that habeas petition. (Lod. Doc. 5.)

On January 9, 2006, petitioner filed his second state habeas petition with the California Supreme Court. (Lod. Doc. 6.) On November 15, 2006, that petition was summarily denied. (Lod. Doc. 8.)

On February 27, 2011, petitioner filed his third state habeas petition with the Butte County Superior Court. (Lod. Doc. 9.) On May 13, 2011, the petition was denied. (Lod. Doc. 10.)

The federal habeas petition now pending before this court was signed by petitioner on April 12, 2011. (Doc. No. 1 at 21.)

PARTIES' ARGUMENTS

I. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

Respondent contends that petitioner's judgment of conviction became final on April 5, 2005, when the forty-days for the filing of a petition for review with the California Supreme Court expired. (Doc. No. 19 at 3.) Respondent argues that the one-year statute of limitations for the filing of a federal habeas petition therefore began to run on April 6, 2005 and expired on April 5, 2006, absent any tolling. (Id.)

Respondent argues that there can be no tolling of the statute of limitations for the time during which petitioner's first state habeas petition was pending before the Butte County Superior Court (February 2, 2004 to April 23, 2004) because that petition was filed before the statute of limitations for the filing of a federal petition began to run and therefore has no effect on the timeliness of the pending federal petition. (Id. at 4.) Next, respondent argues that there can be no tolling for the time period before petitioner sought habeas relief from the California Supreme Court (April 5, 2005 to January 9, 2006) because no state court petition during that time was pending as required for tolling by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). (Id. at 4.) Thus, respondent calculates that 278 days (April 6, 2005 to January 9, 2006) of the one-year statute of limitations had expired before petitioner filed his habeas petition with the California Supreme Court. (Id. at 5.)

Respondent concedes that there is tolling for the 311 days that petitioner's habeas petition was pending before the California Supreme Court (January 9, 2006 to November 15, 2006). (Id.)

Next, respondent asserts that there is no tolling for the 1,564 day interval between the denial of petitioner's second habeas petition by the California Supreme Court and his filing of his third state habeas petition with the Butte County Superior Court. (Id.) In this regard, respondent argues that when petitioner filed his third state petition with the Butte County Superior Court, he initiated a new round of collateral challenge to his judgment of conviction which does not entitle him to tolling of the one year statute of limitations. (Id. at 5-6.)

Based upon the contentions set forth above, respondent calculates that 278 days of the statutory period elapsed before petitioner filed his January 9, 2006 habeas petition with the California Supreme Court and another 1,564 days elapsed between the denial of that state habeas petition and petitioner's filing of his February 27, 2011 habeas petition with the Butte County. (Id. at 7.) Respondent argues that the statute of limitations for petitioner's filing of a federal habeas petition expired during that time. (Id.) Accordingly, respondent contends that even with the benefit 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.