Yoshisato

Yoshisato v. Terhune

Good Law
67 F. App'x 392
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 16, 2003No. 00-57030; D.C. No. CV-99-01346-AHSCalifornia545 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The district court dismissed Wayne Yoshisato’s habeas petition as untimely. We reverse and remand. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we discuss them only as necessary to explain our decision.

Yoshisato’s direct appeal of his conviction ended on March 23, 1998, when the United States Supreme Court denied Yoshisato’s petition for certiorari from the decision of the California Supreme Court declining to review Yoshisato’s conviction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1), Yoshisato had at least until March 22,1999, to file his federal habeas petition.

28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2) tolls the one-year limitation that § 2244(d)(1) imposes during the pendency of “properly filed” state collateral relief. A state habeas petition that subsequently is denied as procedurally barred tolls the one-year § 2244(d)(1) limitation, as long as that petition’s delivery and acceptance were in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings. Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 726 (9th Cir.2001), withdrawing Dictado v. Ducharme, 189 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.1999). Thus, a California state habeas petition that subsequently is denied as untimely due to delay in filing may still be…

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.