Velasquez

Velasquez v. Calderon

Good Law
73 F. App'x 962
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 22, 2003No. 01-56113; D.C. No. CV-00-00954-VAPCalifornia321 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Felix Velasquez appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. The district court held that Velasquez’s petition was untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). We affirm.

For state prisoners filing petitions for federal habeas corpus relief, § 2244(d)(1) imposes a one-year statute of limitation. The limitation period begins to run from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A). Here, Velasquez’s judgment became final February 10, 1998-ninety days after the California Supreme Court denied his direct appeal and first state habeas petition. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir.1999). Because Velasquez had no state proceeding pending during the one-year AEDPA limitation period, and did not file his federal habeas petition by February 10, 1999, his federal petition is time-barred.

Velasquez’s argument that the California judgment became “final” on April 24, 2000-ninety days after the California Supreme Court denied his second state habeas petition-is foreclosed by our decision in Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1046…

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.