Larson
Austin v. Larson
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Austin appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition on the grounds it was time-barred by the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). 1 We reverse and remand.
The California Supreme Court dismissed Austin’s petition with a citation to two cases. One was unrelated to timeliness. The other, In re Robbins, 2 addresses the timeliness of state habeas petitions. Austin filed his California Supreme Court petition about nine and one-half months after the Court of Appeals ruled on the previous *447 one. Given that the California Supreme Court has declined to find petitions filed as much as fifteen months later untimely, 3 the California Supreme Court’s reference to timeliness apparently referred to the eleven-year gap between conviction and filing of the first state habeas petition. A dismissal on this ground is irrelevant to the AEDPA tolling issue here. 4 Carey v. Saff old 5 teaches that the AEDPA is tolled from the filing in the California Superior Court through the California Supreme Court’s ruling on the petition filed there, where the petitioner has not delayed unreasonably between the state filings.