Lorick

MEMORANDUM **

Lorick knew the essential facts for his claims when they were developed during his 1993 sentencing. These facts comprised the “factual predicate” 1 for his ineffective assistance of counsel and conflict of interest claims because they “suggested] both unreasonable performance and resulting prejudice.” 2 That he obtained more evidence in 1999 has no effect on the statute of limitations.

Petitioners are entitled to “one full round” of collateral review in a state court system, during which AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations is generally tolled. 3 Lorick’s “full round” ended, at the latest, on July 25, 1997 when the California Supreme Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus became final. Lor *646 ick’s subsequent attempts to seek mandamus from the California court system, therefore, do not entitle him to any additional tolling.

We need not consider whether Lorick’s filings en route to the California Supreme Court decision of June 25, 1997 were timely. Since Lorick did not sign his federal habeas petition until July 25, 1999 — two years to the day after the denial of his writ of habeas corpus by the California Supreme Court became final—his…