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.

Padilla v. Cdcr

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 7, 2013

FRANKLIN PADILLA, [1] Petitioner,
v.
CDCR, Respondent.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG, Magistrate Judge.

On October 2, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons discussed below, it appears the one-year statute of limitations has expired.

The court, therefore, orders Petitioner to show cause, on or before November 7, 2013, why the court should not recommend dismissal of the petition with prejudice based on expiration of the one-year statute of limitations.

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 14, 2010, a Los Angeles County jury convicted Petitioner of first degree murder and found a gun enhancement to be true. (Petition at 2) The court sentenced Petitioner to 50 years to life in prison. People v. Padilla, 2012 WL 1036026, *1 (Cal.Ct.App. 2012). On March 27, 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. ( Id. ) On June 13, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied review. California's online Appellate Courts Case Information in Case No. S201745.[2]

Petitioner did not file any state habeas petitions. (Petition at 3.)

On September 22, 2013, Petitioner constructively filed the instant petition in this court in which he raises three grounds. Petition, Proof of Service, Back of envelope.)

II.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Therefore, the court applies the AEDPA in reviewing the petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997).

The AEDPA contains a one-year statute of limitations for a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in federal court by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The one-year period starts running on the latest of either the date when a conviction becomes final under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) or on a date set in § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). Only subdivision (d)(1)(A) is relevant to this petition.

The California Supreme Court denied review on direct appeal on June 13, 2012. Petitioner's conviction became final 90 days later on September 11, 2012. See Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). The statute of limitations expired on ...


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.