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.

Price v. Miller

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 30, 2015

EDMOND PAUL PRICE, Petitioner,
v.
AMY MILLER, Warden, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG, Magistrate Judge.

I.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

On October 22, 2010, a San Luis Obispo County jury convicted Petitioner of seven counts of check forgery or counterfeiting. The jury also found true that Petitioner had committed felonies while on bail. Petitioner admitted one strike and three prior prison terms. (Petition at 2; Lodged Document ("LD") 1 at 158-61, 164-67); see People v. Price, 2012 WL 1571513, *1 (Cal.App. Ct. 2012). Petitioner was sentenced to 10 years, 4 months in prison. (LD 1 at 284.)

On May 7, 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment with modifications as to restitution, fees, and conduct credits. (LD 3.) On July 18, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied review. (LD 5.)

On December 26, 2012, Petitioner constructively filed a habeas petition in the Superior Court, which was denied on January 3, 2013. (LD 6-7.) On June 11, 2013, Petitioner constructively filed a habeas petition in the Court of Appeal, which was denied on August 19, 2013. (LD 8-9.) On November 25, 2013, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on February 11, 2014. (LD 10-11.)

On August 12, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition in this court in which he listed five grounds. The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 13.) On February 20, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner filed an opposition ("Opp.") and Respondent filed a reply.

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 has a one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The one-year limitations 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 a date set in § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D).

A. Section 2244(d)(1)(A) - The Date on Which Conviction Became Final

The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review on July 18, 2012. (Petition at 3.) Petitioner's conviction became final 90 days later on October 16, 2012. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). The statute of limitations expired one year ...


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.