N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ONIQUE B ORK,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. JER R Y HOW ELL, W arde n; ATTOR NEY GENER AL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA; DW IGHT NEVEN, W a rde n, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-15461 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-01235-APG-VC F M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 30, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , R AW LINSON, a

nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s. Ne va da sta te prisone r M onique B ork a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha

be a s c orpus pe tition c ha lle nging he r c onvic tion by guilty ple a and he r se nte nc e of 96–240 m onths. B o rk ple a de d guilty to a buse an d c hild 

# FIL ED

SEP 7 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.ne gle c t a fte r he r c hild die d from inc a pa c ita t ing injurie s suffe re d at the ha nds of he r the n boy frie nd, Edwa

rd Thom p son, a n d whic h she did not rep ort. B ork ple a de d guilty to this le sse r c ha

rge in e xc ha

nge for the sta

t e ’ s dismissing a

c h arge of
m urde r. This c ourt gra

nte d a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a l a bility on two c la im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. W e now a ffirm
. B ork first c l a im s c ounse l should ha ve m ove d to dismiss thec ha rge s on sta tute of lim ita

tions grounds. Ne

va da tolls the sta tute of lim i tations for fe l onie s

“ c o m m itte d in a se c re t m anne r” until “ disc ove ry of the offe nse .” Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 171.095(1)(a). Although B ork c onte nds he r c ounse l did not e xam ine the sta tute of lim ita tions issue

be fore a dvising her to ple a d guilty to c hild a buse , B ork ha s not produc e d any e vide nc e of what he r tria l c ounse l a dvise d or why
. And e ve n if B ork’ s c o unse l ha d pursue d a sta tute of lim ita

tions de fe nse , the re wa s little gua ran te e of suc c e ss. As thesta te c ourt of a

ppe a ls c onc lude d, ha d c ounse l m ove d to dismiss on sta

tute o f lim ita

tions grounds, “

the [s] tate would ha

ve be e n a ble to pre s e nt e v ide nc e she c om m itte d the offe n se in a

se c re tive m anne r that tolle d the sta tute of lim ita

tions.” The sta

te c ourt re a sona

bly de te rm ine d tha

t B ork fa ile d to show c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt or pre judic ia l. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d); Harrington v
. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011).
2B ork a lso c la im s c ounse l should ha ve re fuse d

the ple a and a s se rte d

a de fe n se that B ork’ s sta

te m e nts did not a

m ount to a

n a dm ission to the c rim e c ha rge d. This argum e nt a

ppe a rs to a ssum e , e rrone ously , tha t the only e vide nc e the sta

te would be a ble to introduc e at tria l c o nsiste d of B ork’ s sta te m e nts. The re wa s othe r e vide nc e the s tat e c ould ha

ve introduc e d a

nd tha t c ounse l c ould ha

ve re a sona

bly antic ipate d, inc l uding B ork’ s knowle dge of Thom pson’ s drug usa ge and he r de la y in se e king
m e dic a l c are . It wa s re a sona b le for c ounse l to re c om

m e nd a c c e pting a

ple a at a n e arly sta ge in orde r to pre se nt a m ore favora

ble re c ord at se nte nc ing. The distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing the pe t ition is AFFIRM E D.

3