Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-06-11240/USCOURTS-ca5-06-11240-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11240

Summary Calendar

CARLOS JIMENEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo

USDC No. 6:05-CV-52

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court held that Carlos Jimenez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas

petition was time-barred. The Supreme Court vacated this court’s denial of

Jimenez’s application for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and remanded the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 27, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 06-11240 Document: 00511013993 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2010
No. 06-11240

2

case for further proceedings. Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S. Ct. 681 (2009).

After the Supreme Court remanded the case, this court granted a COA to review

the district court’s decision that Jimenez’s petition is time-barred. Both parties

agree that the case should be remanded, in part, for further proceedings.

I.

In 1991, Jimenez pleaded guilty in Texas state court to burglary of a

habitation. He was placed on deferred-adjudication probation for a term of five

years. He did not appeal from the 1991 deferral proceeding.

In 1995, the state trial court revoked Jimenez’s deferred-adjudication

probation, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to 43 years in prison.

Jimenez’s appellate counsel moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Jimenez did not receive a copy of the

Anders brief. The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in September

1996.

Jimenez eventually learned that his appeal had been dismissed. In April

2002, he filed a state habeas application in which he sought leave to file an outof-time appeal, arguing that he had been denied his right to an appeal because

his appointed counsel had not informed him of the filing of an Anders brief. That

September, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Jimenez the right to

file an out-of-time appeal with respect to the 1995 adjudication and sentencing

proceeding.

In his out-of-time appeal, Jimenez challenged both the 1991 deferral

proceeding and the 1995 adjudication and sentencing proceeding. The state

appellate court refused to consider Jimenez’s claims related to the 1991 deferral

proceeding because he failed to raise them in a timely appeal of the imposition

of deferred adjudication probation. Jimenez v. State, 2003 WL 21087604, at *1

(Tex. App.–Austin 2003). The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Jimenez’s

petition for discretionary review (“PDR”) on October 8, 2003.

 Case: 06-11240 Document: 00511013993 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2010
No. 06-11240

3

Jimenez filed a second state habeas application on December 6, 2004.

That petition was denied on June 29, 2005.

On July 19, 2005, Jimenez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenged both the 1991 deferral

proceeding and the 1995 adjudication and sentencing proceeding. The district

court dismissed the petition as barred by the one-year statute of limitations in

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A) (establishing one-year period of limitation for filing a federal

habeas application running from “the date on which the judgment became final

by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such

review”). With respect to Jimenez’s claims regarding the 1991 deferral

proceeding, the district court found that those claims were time-barred pursuant

to Caldwell v. Dretke, 429 F.3d 521, 528-29 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding that a

deferred adjudication is a separate, final judgment for purposes of triggering the

§ 2244(d)(1)(A) limitations period). With respect to Jimenez’s challenge to the

1995 adjudication and sentencing proceeding, the district court found those

claims to be time-barred because Jimenez’s out-of-time appeal did not affect the

finality of his conviction or reset the limitations period, pursuant to Salinas v.

Dretke, 354 F.3d 425, 430 (5th Cir. 2004) (stating that “when a petitioner

convicted in the Texas system acquires the right to file an ‘out-of-time’ PDR, the

relief tolls AEDPA’s statute of limitations until the date on which the Court of

Criminal Appeals declines to grant further relief, but it does not require a

federal court to restart the running of AEDPA’s limitations period altogether”).

This court denied a COA.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari, and vacated

and remanded for further consideration. Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S. Ct. 684,

686-87 (2009). The Court held that under § 2244(d)(1)(A), direct review is not

 Case: 06-11240 Document: 00511013993 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/27/2010
No. 06-11240

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Jimenez’s PDR on October 8, 2003. His 1

conviction became final on January 6, 2004, when the time for seeking certiorari review

expired. Jimenez, 129 S. Ct. at 686. Accordingly, Jimenez had until January 6, 2005, to file

his federal habeas petition. The State concedes that the one-year limitations period was tolled

until June 29, 2005, during the pendency of Jimenez’s second state habeas application that

was filed on December 6, 2004. The State concedes further that the deadline for Jimenez’s

federal habeas application was August 1, 2005, and that the petition was timely filed on July

19, 2005.

4

concluded until the availability of a direct appeal is exhausted. Jimenez, 129

S.Ct. at 686. The Court concluded that when

a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to

file an out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral

review, but before the defendant has first sought

federal habeas relief, his judgment is not yet “final” for

purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A). In such a case, “the date on

which the judgment became final by the conclusion of

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking

such review” must reflect the conclusion of the out-oftime direct appeal, or the expiration of the time for

seeking review of that appeal.

Id. at 686-87. Following remand from the Supreme Court, this court granted

a COA authorizing Jimenez to appeal the district court’s determination that his

federal habeas claims were time-barred. We now turn to consider that issue.

II.

Both parties agree that this case should be remanded to the district court

for further proceedings. Jimenez concedes that his claims regarding his 1991

guilty plea and judgment of deferred adjudication are barred by the statute of

limitations and will not be pursued further. Instead, he requests that the case

be remanded to the district court for an initial consideration of his habeas claims

regarding the 1995 revocation of deferred adjudication. The State agrees that

Jimenez’s claims challenging the 1991 deferral proceeding are untimely, and it

also agrees that his claims challenging the 1995 revocation are timely and that 1

 Case: 06-11240 Document: 00511013993 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/27/2010
No. 06-11240

5

the case should be remanded to the district court for initial consideration of

those claims.

In the light of the parties’ agreement, and our own review of the record

and the Supreme Court’s decision, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment

insofar as it dismissed as time-barred Jimenez’s claims challenging his 1991

guilty plea and judgment of deferred adjudication. The district court’s judgment

is VACATED insofar as it dismissed as time-barred Jimenez’s claims challenging

the 1995 revocation and sentencing, and the case is REMANDED to the district

court for consideration of those claims in the first instance.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.

 Case: 06-11240 Document: 00511013993 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/27/2010