Charles Martin v. James Walker

MEMORANDUM

Charles W. Martin appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition challenging his jury conviction of murder and robbery. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

We reverse the judgment of the district court, a decision which we review de novo. Griffin v. Johnson, 350 F.3d 956, 960 (9th Cir.2003) (stating standard of review for dismissals of habeas petitions based on state procedural defaults).

This appeal follows this Court’s remand in prior appeal No. 05-15524, which remanded for determination of the adequacy of California’s timeliness rule set forth in In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 , 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 (1993) and In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153 , 959 P.2d 311 (1998). California’s timeliness rule became independent of federal law in 1998. Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 582-83 (9th Cir.2003). To be ade quate, the state procedural rule must be “well established and consistently applied.” Id. at 583 . A state procedural rule can be neither “well-established nor consistently applied if it is not clear and certain.” Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200,…