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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 1 . L.
JERICHO LEE JONES, No. 05-16961 I ··¤
D.C. No. ,:CV—O3-O2389—SRB_
Petitioner — Appellant, J pw — ~ * ,
v.
JUDGMENT
DORA B. SCHRIRO, Director; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees. A A C Iiii TPTP T T
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript ofthe Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted. ·
On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered 01/ 1 8/08
A TRUE COPY. .
CATHY A.·C!\ITE[§5QN_
Cler fCi¤&s5;t__g; .,1 _
ATT . T] _ I S”

by .....i... ~ ~ . I A
DQf’°i?....;f? .......t. ....... E (
Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 41 Filed O2/29/2008 Page 1 of 4

Nor Pon PUBLICATION JAN 18 2000
UNITED STATES counr OF APPEALS °ATU¥»A¢€6"¥g·5§?P°?A?%ERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT .
i JERICHO LEE JONES, No. 06-16961 P
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-03-02389-SRB
v. ` I * * I
MEMORANDUM*
DORA B. SCHRIRO, Director; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
I Submitted January 14, 2008**
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
_ Jericho Lee Jones, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the
" This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 41 Filed O2/29/2008 Page 2 of 4

district court’s dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus as untimely, see Bryant v.
Schriro, 499 F .3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The trial court dismissed J ones’s Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32
petition on October 18, 2002. Arizona law entitled Jones to file a petition for
review in the state court of appeals within thirty days. ARIZ. R. CRJM. P. 32.9(c). _
Because Jones did not file a timely petition for review, his conviction became final
on November 18, 2002. See Summers vi $5;%;,7481 F.3d 710, 711 (9th Cir. if
2007) ("Because a Rule 32 of-right proceeding is a form of direct review,
AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until the conclusion
of the Rule 32 of-right proceeding and review of that proceeding, or until the `
expiration of the time for seeking such proceeding or review."). Accordingly,
l Jones had until November 19, 2003, to file a section 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(A); T horson v. Palmer, 479 F.3d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 2007). Jones did _
not file his section 2254 petition until after November 19, 2003. Consequently,
absent tolling, Jones’s federal habeas petition was untimely filed.
Jones contends that he is entitled to tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Jones has not demonstrated, however, that a petition for review of the dismissal of
an of-right Rule 32 proceeding implicates section 2244(d)(2). Moreover, even
assuming that J ones’s petition for review constituted an "application for State post-
2
Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 41 Filed O2/29/2008 Page 3 of 4

conviction or other collateral review," see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), the petition was
rejected as untimelylby the state court of appeals. Therefore, it was not "properly
ii1ed" and did not toll the limitations period. See Allen v. Siebert, 128 S. Ct. 2, 4
P (2007); Pace v. DiGuglielm0, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005).
Jones further contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling. We disagree
because the record reflects that Jones did not pursue his rights diligently. See
Pace, 544 U.S. at 418-19; Brjyanl,i490l V l 8 it J 0 A
AFFIRMED.
3
Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB Document 41 Filed O2/29/2008 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB

Document 41

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB

Document 41

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB

Document 41

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02389-SRB

Document 41

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 4 of 4