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.

Valdez v. Montgomery

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 14, 2019

Martin Leyva Valdez, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
W. L. Montgomery, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

          Submitted February 5, 2019 [*] Pasadena, California

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. 5:16-cv-00567-VAP-DTB Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge, Presiding

          Stephanie M. Adraktas, Berkeley, California, for Petitioner-Appellant.

          Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California; Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Robin Urbanski, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Sharon L. Rhodes, Deputy Attorney General; Vincent P. LaPietra, Deputy Attorney General; Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, California; for Respondent-Appellee.

          Before: Ronald M. Gould, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.

         SUMMARY [**]

         Habeas Corpus

         The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of California state prisoner Martin Leyva Valdez, Jr.'s federal habeas petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

         The parties agreed that the petition was untimely unless the statute of limitations was tolled from May 15, 2014- when the California Superior Court denied Valdez's first state habeas petition-until April 29, 2015-when Valdez filed his second state habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal.

         Because the question of whether Valdez's second state habeas petition was timely filed in the Court of Appeal is an entirely distinct issue from whether his habeas petition in the Superior Court was timely filed, the panel held that the "look through" doctrine cannot answer whether the second state habeas petition was timely.

         The panel held that Valdez is not entitled to statutory tolling. Because Valdez filed his second state habeas petition before the California Supreme Court decided People v. Elizalde, 351 P.3d 1010 (Cal. 2015), the panel rejected his contention that he can establish good cause for the delay by waiting until Elizalde was decided. The panel likewise rejected Valdez's contention that the size of the state-court record and complexity of the case renders his delay reasonable and establishes good cause, where Valdez offered no explanation for why he could timely file his first petition but not his second.

         The panel concluded that the district court did not err by not ordering the State to respond and lodge the state-court record.

          OPINION

          GOULD, CIRCUIT JUDGE:

         We once again consider whether a California-state prisoner is entitled to statutory tolling under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Because we hold that Petitioner-Appellant Martin Valdez is not, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Valdez's federal habeas petition as untimely.

         I

         Over the course of two jury trials, Valdez was convicted of murder, attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and robbery. People v. Valdez, No. E053309, 2013 WL 1770856, at *1 (Cal.Ct.App., Apr. 25, 2013) (unpublished). The trial court sentenced Valdez to life without the possibility of parole, plus seventy years to life, plus nine years. Id. Valdez appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed. Id. at *2. The California Supreme Court then denied Valdez's petition for review on July 31, 2013.

         Valdez filed his first state habeas petition in California Superior Court on April 10, 2014. The court denied that petition on May 15, 2014. Almost one year later, in April 2015, Valdez filed his second state petition in the California Court of Appeal, asserting the same claims.[1] The court denied that petition without explanation. Valdez then filed his third state petition in the California Supreme ...


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.