Hicks

Hicks v. Lamarque

Good Law
126 F. App'x 341
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 9, 2005No. 01-56832; D.C. No. CV-00-05601-CMCalifornia727 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Arthur Lee Hicks’s conviction became final on July 10, 1996. He petitioned the Superior Court of California for a writ of habeas corpus on August 15, 1996, which was denied January 10, 1997. He filed a mixed federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 21, 1997, which was denied without prejudice on July 27, 1998. He filed another petition, this time in the Cali *342 fornia Supreme Court, on April 6, 1999, which was denied on July 28, 1999. He subsequently filed sundry other papers in various state courts. Hicks filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court on May 24, 2000, and it was dismissed as barred by the one year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d).

Hicks’s task on appeal is to turn this almost four year period into less than one. His argument is that his year did not start running until he lost the second time in the California Supreme Court on April 26, 2000, because of tolling during the pendency of state exhaustion. He is wrong, because the state exhaustion was not pending throughout most of the period.

Hicks’s superior court petition, filed on August 15,1996, claimed a right to…

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.