Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 44.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: June 1, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 373 Words, 2,320 Characters
Page Size: 622.08 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/43193/35-2.pdf

Download Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona ( 44.6 kB)


Preview Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona
NOT FOR PUBLICATION l
A UNITED STATES count or APPEALS D
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY Q1 gogg-
cArn—iv A.CA'I'|`ERSON CLERK
. u.s. counr or APpéAt.s .
RICHARD FARRALL, No. 05-15152
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-04-00260-EHC
" v.
MEMORANDUM*
DORA B. SCHRIRO, Director,
` Respondent - Appellee. - c
‘ . Appeal from the United States District Court
_ for the District of Arizona
, Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submission deferred March 8, 2007
Submitted for Decision April 27, 2007**
` Tempe, Arizona ‘
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Richard Farrall appeals the district court’s order denying as untimely his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After the briefs in this case were filed, we
held that “Arizona’s Rule 32 of-right proceeding for plea-convicted defendants is
* This disposition is not approprgte for publication and is not `
precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
A . W This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). `
Case 2:O4—cv-OO260—EHC-BPV Document 35-2 Filed 06/O1/2007 . Page 1 of 2

a form of direct review within themeaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)."
Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 2007 WL 738447, at *7 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus,
the one-year statute of limitations provided by the Antiterrorism and Effective p
Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") "did not begin to run until 90 days after
the Arizona Supreme Court denied [Summers’] petition for review .... ” Id.
Applying Summers to this case, AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations did
not begin to run until.90 days after Februaiy 20, 2003, when the Arizona Supreme l
Court denied Farrall’s petition for review of his Rule 32 proceedings. Therefore,
under Summers, Farral‘l’s habeas petition, filed in the district court on February 4,
· 2004, was timely. `
REVERSED AND REMANDED. ‘

ATTEST · ·
. 2 i MA`? 2 5 2007
Case 2:04-cv-00260—EHC—BPV Document 35-2 Filed 06/01/ 007 Page 2 of 2 ‘

Case 2:04-cv-00260-EHC-BPV

Document 35-2

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00260-EHC-BPV

Document 35-2

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 2 of 2