Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03002/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03002-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timm David Wroe,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 04-3002-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the p etition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”). Docs. ##1, 13. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition as

untimely. Doc. #13 at 4. On November 14, 2005, Pet it ioner filed a timely objection to the

R&R. Doc. #14. The Court has reviewed both the R&R and Petitioner’s objection, and

finds the R&R to be well-taken. 

On Ap ril 26, 1996, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and second degree

burglary. Doc. #12, Ex. C. Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the

Arizona Court of Appeals, and the Ariz ona Supreme Court denied review on February 20,

1998. Doc. #12, Ex. F. 

Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on September 15, 1997, while his

direct appeal was still pending. Thus, there was no time between t he completion of direct

appeal and the initiation of p ost conviction proceedings within which the Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) statute of limitations began to run.

Case 2:04-cv-03002-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

Petitioner therefore had one year from the conclusion of his post-conviction relief petition

to file a federal habeas petition. See §§ 2244(d)(1)(A)-(d)(2). 

The trial court denied the petition for post-conviction relief, and, on November 6,

2003, t he Arizona Court of Appeals issued an order denying review of the trial court’s

decision. Doc. #12, Ex. P. Pet itioner had 30 days from this order to seek review in the

Arizona Supreme Court, but failed to do so. On December 22, 2003, two weeks after the 30-

day p eriod for seeking review had expired, the deputy clerk of the Arizona Court of

Ap p eals t ransferred to the trial court a certified copy of the Court of Appeals’ November

6, 2003 order deny ing review. Doc. #12, Ex. P. Petitioner argues that he had one year from

the date of this transmittal to file his habeas petition. Doc. #14. The Court disagrees.

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.19(a) provides that Petitioner has “thirty

days, after the filing of a decision, . . . [to] file with the clerk of the Court of Ap p eals a

petition for review by the Supreme Court.” (Emphasis added.) The Court of Appeals’

decision denying review was filed on November 6, 2003. Doc. # 12, Ex. P. Petitioner had

30 days from this date – until December 8, 2003 – to petition the Arizona Supreme Court

for review. Because Petitioner failed to do so, the statute of limitations began to run on

December 8, 2003 and expired on December 8, 2004. Petitioner filed his habeas petition in

this Court on December 22, 2004, two weeks after the statute of limitations had run. The

petition was untimely.

Petitioner argues in a single sentence that “any equitable tolling needed bet ween

the file date denying review and the time which the mandate was issued must be

considered and granted.” Doc. #14 at 3. Equit able t olling of the AEDPA’s limitation period

is not available in most cases. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d

1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998).

To justify equitable tolling, Petit ioner must show that “extraordinary circumstances beyond

his control made it impossible to file a p etition on time and the extraordinary circumstances

were the cause of his untimeliness.” United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir.

Case 2:04-cv-03002-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

2004) (cit ing Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2003)); see Calderon, 128 F.3d

at 1289; Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner has not attempted

to make such showings.

The Court will accept t he M agistrate’s R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in p art ,

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (same).

IT IS SO ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s R&R (Doc. #13) is accepted

2. Petitioner Wroe’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 13th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-03002-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 3