Gina Celaya v. Charles Ryan

MEMORANDUM

Charles Ryan, et al., (collectively, Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees) appeal the district court’s conclusion that Gina Gail Celaya’s habeas petition was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). Respondents also appeal the district court’s decision that Celaya’s trial was fundamentally unfair, entitling her to habeas relief. Celaya cross-appeals the lower court’s holding that she procedurally defaulted on her ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act provides, “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction ... review ... is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). The pendency of such an application is determined by state law. See Wixom v. Washington, 264 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir.2001) (applying Washington law). Under Arizona law, Celaya’s PCR petition was “pending” until the Arizona Court of Appeals issued the mandate concluding its review of that petition…