Court Opinion

ID: 9387459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 00:00:34.337218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:13.560696
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-50775         Document: 00516714792             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/17/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 21-50775
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                 April 17, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Isidro Ramos, III,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                   Petitioner—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
   Correctional Institutions Division,

                                                Respondent—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:20-CV-1448
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Following this court’s grant of a certificate of appealability, Isidro
   Ramos, III, Texas inmate # 02150358, appeals the dismissal, as time-barred,
   of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for sexual assault
   of a child and continuous sexual abuse of a child. Ramos contends that the
   district court erred by excluding from its statutory tolling analysis the nearly
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-50775      Document: 00516714792           Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/17/2023

                                     No. 21-50775

   700-day pendency of his motions for postconviction DNA testing under
   article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and his attendant appeal
   of the denial of those motions. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The State
   concurs.
          Under § 2244(d), a petitioner must bring a federal challenge to his
   state conviction or sentence within one year of, relevantly, “the date on
   which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the
   expiration of the time for seeking such review.” § 2244(d)(1)(A); see Roberts
   v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690, 693 (5th Cir. 2003). However, “[t]he time during
   which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral
   review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be
   counted toward any period of limitation under [§ 2244(d)].” § 2244(d)(2)
   (emphasis added). Because Ramos did not argue in the district court that his
   federal petition was timely based on his postconviction DNA testing motions,
   we review that issue for plain error. See United States v. Redd, 562 F.3d 309,
   313 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2009).
          “[A] motion to test DNA evidence under Texas Code of Criminal
   Procedure article 64 constitutes ‘other collateral review’ and thus tolls
   the . . . one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).” Hutson
   v. Quarterman, 508 F.3d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, the failure to
   include the pendency of Ramos’s DNA testing motion was error, and that
   error was clear or obvious in light of Hutson. See Redd, 562 F.3d at 314. As
   the State concedes, if that period is included, Ramos’s petition was timely.
   Moreover, the error affected Ramos’s substantial rights and seriously affects
   the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings by
   depriving Ramos of the opportunity to have the merits of his constitutional
   claims considered in an initial § 2254 petition. See Wallace v. Mississippi, 43
   F.4th 482, 500–01 (5th Cir. 2022).

                                          2
Case: 21-50775     Document: 00516714792          Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/17/2023

                                   No. 21-50775

          Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court
   dismissing Ramos’s § 2254 petition as time-barred and REMAND this
   matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                         3