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.

Barragan v. Johnson

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 4, 2015

Guadalupe Barragan
v.
Deborah Johnson.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

KENLY KIYA KATO, Magistrate Judge.

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Requiring Answer to Petition

On April 3, 2014, Guadalupe Barragan ("Petitioner"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), with this Court.[1] (ECF Docket No. ("dkt.") 1). In the Petition, Petitioner challenges her June 2010 conviction in Los Angeles County Superior Court for first-degree murder. (Id.). Respondent has filed a Return, arguing the Petition is untimely. For the reasons set forth below, the Court declines to dismiss the Petition as untimely based on the limited record before it. Furthermore, because Respondent's Return only challenges the timeliness of the Petition, the Court orders Respondent to file an Answer addressing the merits of the Petition's claims.

I.

BACKGROUND

On June 10, 2010, following a jury trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder, in violation of California Penal Code section 187(a). See Lodg. No. 1.[2] On October 6, 2010, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to fifty years in state prison. Lodg. No. 2.

On March 8, 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's convictions in a reasoned decision on direct appeal.[3] Lodg. No. 4. On May 16, 2012, the California Supreme Court summarily denied discretionary review of the appeal. Lodg. No. 6. On October 15, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari. Lodg. No. 7.

On May 15, 2013, Petitioner constructively filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Lodg. No. 8. On May 23, 2013, the Superior Court denied the petition on the ground that the issues raised in the petition either were or should have been raised on appeal. Lodg. No. 9.

On November 4, 2013, Petitioner constructively filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal. Lodg. No. 10. On November 22, 2013, the California Court of Appeal denied the petition, citing In re Dixon , 41 Cal.2d 756, 759 (1953), In re Harris , 5 Cal.4th 813, 829 (1993), and In re Robbins , 18 Cal.4th 770, 779 (1998). Lodg. No. 11.

On December 22, 2013, Petitioner constructively filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. Lodg. No. 12. On March 12, 2014, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition. Lodg. No. 13.

On April 3, 2014, Petitioner constructively filed the instant Petition. (ECF Docket No. ("dkt.") 1). On October 6, 2014, Respondent filed a Return, contending the Petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Dkt. 17). On February 5, 2015, Petitioner filed a Reply to Respondent's Return. (Dkt. 24).

II.

DISCUSSION

The instant Petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Therefore, the Court must apply the requirements for habeas relief set forth in AEDPA when reviewing the Petition. Soto v. Ryan , 760 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997)). AEDPA contains a one-year statute of limitations for a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed ...


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.