Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00825/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00825-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Romero, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Warden Gay, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0825-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents' answer (doc. 8), and petitioner's reply (doc. 9); the

United States Magistrate Judge's order to show cause why the petition should not be

dismissed as untimely (doc. 13), petitioner's response (doc. 14), respondents' response (doc.

15), and petitioner's reply (doc. 16); the report and recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge (doc. 20), petitioner's objections (doc. 22), and respondents' response (doc.

25); and petitioner's motion for status report and complete docket statement (doc. 26). 

For the following reasons, we accept the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

within the meaning of Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 cases, and deny the petition for

writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1). 

Case 2:04-cv-00825-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

At the time of petitioner's date of offense and conviction, Arizona law did not allow

him to earn early release credits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1604.01(G), 41-1604.06, 41 § 1607(A)

(1985); True v. Stewart, 199 Ariz. 396, 397, 18 P.3d 707, 708 (2001). Although the statute

was subsequently amended regarding eligibility for earned release credits, the amendments

"do not affect the eligibility of persons convicted prior to September 27, 1990." True, 199

Ariz. at 399, 18 P.3d at 710. 

- 2 -

I

On March 13, 1989, pursuant to a guilty plea to two counts of attempted sexual

conduct with a minor, petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for each count, to

run consecutively, and to lifetime probation. On April 24, 1990, the Arizona Court of

Appeals affirmed the convictions. Thereafter, on May 10, 2001, petitioner filed a petition

for post-conviction relief in state court, claiming that the Arizona Department of Corrections

miscalculated his sentence by failing to apply good time credits. On July 3, 2001, the state

court denied the petition on its merits, concluding that petitioner is not eligible for early

release credits and that the failure of the trial judge to inform him of this ineligibility does

not render his guilty plea involuntary. Response to Petition (doc. 8), exhibit B.1

 The Arizona

Court of Appeals denied review on May 9, 2002, and the state post-conviction proceedings

concluded on October 7, 2002, when the Arizona Supreme Court issued its order denying

review. 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") "imposes a

one-year statute of limitations on habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners in federal

court." Malcom v. Payne, 281 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)).

State prisoners, such as petitioner, "whose convictions became final prior to AEDPA's

enactment, had a one-year grace period in which to file their petitions." Patterson v. Stewart,

251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001). The one-year grace period ended on April 24, 1997 in

the absence of statutory or equitable tolling. Id. at 1246. The limitations period is statutorily

tolled when a "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review

with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

Case 2:04-cv-00825-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Equitable tolling may apply "if extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control make

it impossible to file a petition on time." Malcom, 281 F.3d at 962.

Under AEDPA, petitioner had until October 7, 2003 to file his federal habeas petition,

one year after the conclusion of his state post-conviction proceedings. Because the present

petition was not filed until April 10, 2004, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause

why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely under AEDPA (doc. 13). After

briefings by the parties, the magistrate judge concluded that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus is untimely, and that petitioner is not entitled to tolling of the statute. Accordingly,

the magistrate judge now recommends dismissing the petition.

II

Petitioner raises several arguments to support his claim for equitable tolling. In his

objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, petitioner argues that the

statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because he never received the Arizona Court

of Appeals' April 24, 1990 order affirming his conviction ("1990 Order") (doc. 21). This

argument is without merit. Even assuming that petitioner never received the 1990 Order, it

is not clear how that fact is relevant to the timeliness of his present petition. 

In its 1990 Order, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that "the trial court erred in the

instant case by failing to advise defendant at his change of plea hearing of his ineligibility

to earn release credits." 1990 Order at 6. The court concluded, however, that such error does

not render the convictions reversible given that the record contained no showing of prejudice

to petitioner. Id. Similarly, in ruling on petitioner's petition for state post-conviction relief,

the state court concluded that the trial court's failure to advise petitioner of his ineligibility

to earn release credits does not render the plea involuntary where he "was aware of the

minimum and maximum sentences he could receive." Answer to Petition (doc. 8), exhibit

B at 1. The court further concluded that petitioner's ineligibility to earn release credits would

not affect his earliest parole date. Id. 

Even assuming that petitioner did not receive a copy of the 1990 Order affirming his

conviction, he nevertheless pursued his state post-conviction remedies. The conclusion of

Case 2:04-cv-00825-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

those state post-conviction proceedings triggered the running of the AEDPA statute of

limitations. Petitioner's failure to receive a copy of the 1990 Order does not impact that

trigger date and does not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance[ ] beyond [his] control,"

which made it impossible to file a petition on time. See Malcom, 281 F.3d at 962.

We also reject petitioner's argument that he was unable to pursue a habeas petition

because he was intimidated in the jail yard until 1999, when he was separated from the

general prison population. Even if we accept petitioner's claim as true, the impediment to

pursuing his claim was removed in 1999, some four years before his filing deadline. This

alleged obstacle to filing his petition cannot serve as the basis for equitable tolling.

Next, we agree with the magistrate judge's conclusion that Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), is inapposite factually and in any event does not apply

retroactively. See Jones v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1227, 1236-38 (9th Cir. 2000). The magistrate

judge correctly concluded that Apprendi does not serve as a basis to equitably toll the statute

of limitations.

Finally, we reject petitioner's claim for equitable tolling based on his argument that

copies of AEDPA were removed from the Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADC")

libraries until January 8, 2002. Petitioner's Objections (doc. 22) at 1. As we have already

recognized, petitioner had one year from the conclusion of his state post-conviction

proceedings, or until October 7, 2003, to file his federal habeas petition. Therefore, copies

of AEDPA were in place at ADC well before the statute of limitations began to run and

before petitioner's filing deadline. 

III

Based on the foregoing, we accept the recommended decision of the United States

Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the petition for writ of

habeas corpus (doc. 1). 

Case 2:04-cv-00825-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Petitioner's motion for status report and docket statement (doc. 26) is GRANTED

insofar as the status of this matter is explained in this Order. The clerk is directed to send

petitioner a copy of the docket in the instant matter. 

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00825-FJM Document 27 Filed 07/03/07 Page 5 of 5