United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK, Magistrate Judge.
This Final Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Josephine L. Staton, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
On June 24, 2014, Petitioner Baltazar Maldonado Quintanor ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Dkt. 1 ("Petition"). According to the face of the Petition, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Ventura County Superior Court to three counts of committing a lewd act upon a child with various special enhancements. Id. at 1-2. On August 29, 2000, Petitioner was sentenced to 45 years to life in state prison. Id. at 1.
Although Petitioner indicates that he did not file an appeal, the California appellate courts' online database reflects that the California Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's judgment on September 5, 2001, in Case No. B144836. It does not appear that Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court.
Petitioner took no further action to contest his conviction for at least a decade, when he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a writ of error coram nobis in the Ventura County Superior Court. Petition at 3. The Superior Court denied the petition on January 7, 2014. Id . On January 27, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal in Case No. B253903, which was summarily denied on February 18, 2014. On March 10, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court in Case No. S217069, which was summarily denied on May 14, 2014. Id. at 4.
Petitioner then filed the Petition now before this Court. Petitioner contends that his guilty plea was induced by duress, menace, deceptive means, and trickery by defense counsel, the prosecutor, and police. Id. at 5.
Based on its initial review of the Petition, it appeared to the Court that Petitioner's claims are time-barred. Therefore, on July 25, 2014, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as untimely filed. Dkt. 7. On August 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a response to this Court's order to show cause. Dkt. 9 ("Response").
A. Legal Standard
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), a one-year limitations period applies to a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a person in state custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides:
(1) 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 ...