Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03827/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03827-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ALISHA RAE SANCHEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CV 05-3827 PHX SRB (MEA)

)

DORA B. SCHRIRO and )

ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) 

 Respondents. ) 

_________________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON:

On November 23, 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se

petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The petition was dismissed with leave to amend and

Petitioner filed an amended petition on February 15, 2006.

Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (“Answer”) on March 15, 2006. Docket No. 10.

Respondents assert that the action for habeas relief was not

timely filed and, therefore, that the petition must be denied

and dismissed with prejudice.

I Procedural History

On June 10, 1999, Petitioner was indicted on one count

of manslaughter, one count of aggravated assault, and two counts

of endangerment. See Answer, Exh. A. A jury found Petitioner

Case 2:05-cv-03827-SRB Document 11 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 6
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-

guilty of the lesser included offense of negligent homicide and

also found Petitioner guilty of the charges of aggravated

assault and endangerment. Id., Exhs. C-J. 

On February 2, 2001, Petitioner was sentenced to a term

of 8 years imprisonment for her conviction for negligent

homicide, to be served concurrently with a sentence of 5 years

on the charge of aggravated assault and a sentence of 2.25 years

imprisonment on the count of endangerment. Id., Exh. K.

Sentencing pursuant to Petitioner’s second conviction for

endangerment was suspended. Id., Exh. K.

Petitioner took a direct appeal of her convictions and

sentences on February 15, 2001. Id., Exh. L. The Arizona Court

of Appeals denied the appeal in a decision filed November 13,

2001. Id., Exh. P. Petitioner sought review of this decision

by the Arizona Supreme Court, which denied review on May 21,

2002. Id., Exh. R. 

Petitioner filed an action for post-conviction relief

in the Arizona trial court on July 30, 2002. Id., Exh. S.

Petitioner never filed an actual petition for post-conviction

relief and this action was finally dismissed on February 14,

2003, for Petitioner’s failure to file an actual petition for

relief. Id., Exh. U. Petitioner did not seek review of the

decision dismissing her Rule 32 action by the Arizona Court of

Appeals.

On November 23, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for

federal habeas relief. The petition was dismissed with leave to

amend and Petitioner filed an emended petition on February 15,

Case 2:05-cv-03827-SRB Document 11 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 6
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-

2006. See Docket No. 4. Petitioner asserts she is entitled to

federal habeas relief because she was denied the effective

assistance of counsel, i.e., her counsel “did not provide a reenactment of the accident during [her] trial.” Petitioner also

asserts juror misconduct, i.e., that the presence of a juror’s

husband in the gallery during the trial meant the juror was

improperly discussing the case with her husband. Petitioner

also asserts her constitutional rights were violated because the

police took an un-Mirandized statement from her after the

accident while she was under the influence of narcotics, which

statement was used against her at her trial. Petitioner further

contends she is entitled to federal habeas relief because she

was “[d]enied right to a fair trial. Trial court refused to

instruct the jury on the legality of the use of high-beam head

lights.” 

 II Analysis

A. Relevant statute of limitations

The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

barred by the applicable statute of limitations as found in the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”).

The AEDPA requires state prisoners to file any petition

for federal habeas corpus relief within one year of the date

their state court conviction becomes “final.” See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A) (1994 & Supp. 2006) (“A 1-year period of

limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a

State court.”). The federal habeas petition “must be filed

Case 2:05-cv-03827-SRB Document 11 Filed 06/22/06 Page 3 of 6
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 Petitioner had thirty days to seek review of this decision

by the Arizona Court of Appeals and, therefore, the statute of

limitations on her federal habeas action was further statutorily

tolled during this time. See Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 803-04

(10th Cir. 2000) (“Thus, we hold today that, regardless of whether a

petitioner actually appeals a denial of a post-conviction application,

the limitations period is tolled during the period in which the

petitioner could have sought an appeal under state law.”); Swartz v.

Meyers, 204 F.3d 417, 420-24 (3d Cir. 2000) (holding that, because a

judgment is not final until the time for seeking review expires, the

word “pending” includes that time period, whether or not such review

is sought, and collecting cases so holding). See also Johnson v.

McCaughtry, 265 F.3d 559, 563 n.3 (7th Cir. 2001) (declining to decide

issue but collecting cases so holding).

-4-

within one year of the latest of the date on which ... the

judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or

the time passed for seeking direct review ...” Id. The running

of this one-year statute of limitations is tolled during any

period when “a properly filed application for state postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in any state court. See

id. § 2244(d)(2); see also Calderon v. United States Dist. Court

(Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286-87 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on

other grounds by Calderon v. Kelly, 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998)

(en banc).

Petitioner did not have any action for post-conviction

relief pending in the Arizona state courts for a period of more

than one year after her conviction became final and before she

filed her federal habeas petition. The statute of limitations

ran against Petitioner at least from March 16, 2003, when the

time for seeking review of the Arizona Superior Court’s decision

dismissing her action for post-conviction relief by the Arizona

Court of Appeals expired,1 until at least November 23, 2005, when

Case 2:05-cv-03827-SRB Document 11 Filed 06/22/06 Page 4 of 6
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 filed her action for federal habeas corpus relief.

Because Petitioner did not file her federal habeas

action within the period specified by the AEDPA, her petition

for habeas relief may only considered if the AEDPA’s time

limitation may be “equitably” tolled in his case. See Allen v.

Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals has determined that equitable tolling of the

filing deadline for a federal habeas petition is available only

if extraordinary circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control

make it impossible to file a petition on time. See Gaston v.

Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2003); Malcom v. Payne,

281 F.3d 951, 962 (9th Cir. 2002). Equitable tolling is only

appropriate when external forces, rather than a petitioner’s

lack of diligence, account for the failure to file a timely

claim. See Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.

1999). It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that equitable

tolling is warranted in his case. Gaston, 417 F.3d at 1034. 

Petitioner has not established that there were

extraordinary circumstances beyond her control which made it

impossible for her to file a timely federal habeas petition. 

III Conclusion

Petitioner did not file her federal habeas action

within the one-year period specified by the AEDPA and Petitioner

has not established that she is entitled to equitable tolling of

the statute of limitations regarding her federal habeas action.

Case 2:05-cv-03827-SRB Document 11 Filed 06/22/06 Page 5 of 6
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 -6-

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Ms. Sanchez’ Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with

prejudice.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district

court’s judgment. 

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be

considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to

timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of

the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of

law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 21st day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03827-SRB Document 11 Filed 06/22/06 Page 6 of 6