Thomas James Welch v. Thomas Carey, Warden

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 13181·350 F.3d 1079·2003 WL 22870961·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10457·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24469
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 5, 200300-15366California2,549 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

It is well-settled that the timeliness of a petition for post-conviction relief filed in state court is governed by state law. However, the circumstances under which a state petition will be deemed “pending” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2) is a federal question. In this case, the petitioner filed a state habeas petition in Kern County Superior Court raising one ground, lost, and pursued it no further. Four and a half years later, petitioner filed a second state habeas petition — this time in the California Supreme Court — raising different grounds. We hold, as a matter of federal law, that petitioner had no application for post-conviction relief “pending” during the four and a half year gap.

I

Background

A.

On December 29, 1989, Welch pleaded guilty in California Superior Court to two counts of attempted murder. He was sentenced to concurrent life terms with the possibility of parole.

Dissatisfied with the consequences of his plea, he moved in the trial court to withdraw it, but his motion was denied. On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of conviction for the limited purpose of allowing him to renew his motion to withdraw.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.