Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01320/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01320-0/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 

Vincent Mena,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01320-TUC-DTF

ORDER 

 Vincent Mena, who is currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in 

Safford, AZ, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. Pending before the Court is the Petition (Doc. 1) and Respondents’ Answer to 

Petition (Doc. 18). The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate 

Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 14.) The Court finds that the Petition 

should be dismissed on the ground that it is time-barred. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On December 31, 1992, Mena was convicted of burglary in the second degree, 

kidnapping, armed robbery, and two counts of sexual assault. He was sentenced to 46 

years of incarceration on January 21, 1993. (Doc. 18, Exs. B, C.) Petitioner filed a 

Petition for Post-conviction Relief (PCR) on August 2, 1993, but subsequently filed a 

motion to withdraw it because he was in the process of filing a direct appeal. (Id., Exs. I, 

J at 1.) On direct appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed both his convictions and 

Case 4:13-cv-01320-DTF Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

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 

sentences on November 29, 1994. (Id., Ex. L at 2.) Petitioner did not file a motion for 

reconsideration or a petition for review of his direct appeal, and the court of appeals 

issued a mandate on January 12, 1995. (Id., Ex. M at 1.) 

 On May 12, 2011, Petitioner filed a Notice of PCR, which was denied on the 

merits on January 24, 2012. (Id., Exs. N at 1, Q at 2.) He filed a petition for review with 

the Arizona Court of Appeals, which granted review but adopted the PCR court’s order 

and denied relief. (Id., Exs. R, S at 3.) His subsequent petition for review with the 

Arizona Supreme Court was denied on December 12, 2012. (Id., Exs. T, U.) 

 On October 10, 2013, Mena filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this 

Court alleging a Due Process sentencing violation based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 

U.S. 296 (2004). (Doc. 1 at 6.) 

DISCUSSION 

 Respondents argue that Petitioner’s claim is time-barred because the Petition 

violates the statute of limitations. 

 Statute of Limitations and Statutory Tolling 

 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), federal 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners are governed by a one-year 

statute of limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period begins to run 

from the latest of: 

 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion 

 of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 

 

 (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created 

 by State action in violation n of the Constitution or laws of the United 

 States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State 

 action; 

 (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 

 recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized 

 by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on 

 collateral review; or 

Case 4:13-cv-01320-DTF Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

 

 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims 

 presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

Id. 

 In applying (d)(1)(A), the Court must assess when direct review of Mena’s 

convictions became final. The Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed his conviction on 

November 29, 1994, and his judgment became final thirty days later, Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

31.19(a), after his time to seek review in the Arizona Supreme Court expired on 

December 29, 1994. See Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(assessing § 2244 finality in light of the Arizona rules), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 829 

(2008); Wixom v. Washington, 264 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Because Petitioner’s convictions were final prior to ratification of the AEDPA, the 

statute of limitations did not begin to run until the day after that statute was enacted, 

April 25, 1996. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, 

Petitioner had until April 24, 1997, in which to file his Petition. See id. Petitioner did not 

file his Petition in this Court until October 10, 2013; therefore, it was untimely under 

§ 2244(d)(1)(A). 

Petitioner contends his PCR petition was timely under state rules and, therefore, 

the federal limitations period was statutorily tolled.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) 

(excepting from federal limitations period the time during which a proper state PCR 

 

1

 Petitioner argues that because his case arose before the enactment of the 1992 P.C.R. 

Amendments, which imposed time limits on the filing of a petition for PCR, they do not 

apply to his case. However, on September 24, 1992, the Arizona Supreme Court entered 

an order stating that the 1992 amendments were “applicable to all post-conviction relief 

petitions filed on and after September 30, 1992, except that the time limits of 90 and 30 

days imposed by [the amendments] shall be inapplicable to a defendant sentenced prior to 

September 30, 1992, who is filing his first petition for post-conviction relief.” Supreme 

Court Order, 171 Ariz. XLIV (1992). Mena was sentenced on January 21, 1993, ergo the 

time limits imposed by the amendments still apply to his case. See Moreno v. Gonzalez, 

192 Ariz. 131, 135, 962 P.2d 205, 209 (1998) (reiterating that the amendments do not 

apply to convicts sentenced before September 30, 1992, not convicts whose cases arose 

before that date). 

Case 4:13-cv-01320-DTF Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

proceeding is pending). His argument fails because a timely state petition filed after the 

expiration of the federal limitations period does not reinitiate the federal time period. See 

Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that petitioners 

seeking federal relief must comply with the federal rules as it would be unfair for 

prisoners in various states to be subject to different federal limitations periods). Thus, 

Petitioner’s 2011 PCR proceeding had no impact on the 1997 expiration of the federal 

statute of limitations. 

 Because the Petition is based on Blakely, decided by the Supreme Court eleven 

years after Petitioner’s case became final, the Court also examines the limitations period 

under § 2244(d)(1)(C). Petitioner argues that, under Blakely, his sentence was 

unconstitutional.2

 However, subsection (C) only applies if the constitutional right created 

in Blakely was “made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” The Ninth 

Circuit has held that Blakely is not retroactive. Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1027 

(9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, subsection (C) does not extend the limitations period. Further, 

Petitioner did not file his Petition within one year of the Blakely decision.3

 

 Petitioner raises no argument for equitable tolling and the Court can find no 

obvious basis for the untimeliness of this filing, years after the expiration of the 

limitations period. The Petition is statutorily time-barred. 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this Court 

must issue or deny a certificate of appealability (COA) at the time it issues a final order 

adverse to the applicant. A COA may issue only when the petitioner “has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This 

 

2 Blakely held that it violated the Sixth Amendment for a judge to enhance a sentence 

based on his own findings of fact, independent of those decided by a jury or admitted by 

the defendant. Blakely, 542 U.S. at 305. 

3

 Petitioner admits that it was not until “[l]ong after Blakely was decided” that he became 

aware of a possible claim; and even then he does not offer any explanation for the lengthy 

delay. (Doc. 1 at 6.)

Case 4:13-cv-01320-DTF Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

showing can be established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate 

whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 

different manner” or that the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 

U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable 

jurists could debate (1) whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right, and (2) whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id. The 

Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find this Court’s procedural ruling 

debatable. Therefore, a COA will not issue. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court should enter judgment and 

close this case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a 

certificate of appealability. 

 Dated this 10th day of July, 2014. 

Case 4:13-cv-01320-DTF Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 Page 5 of 5