Wetton

MEMORANDUM ****

Kelly Wetton appeals the denial by the district court of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on timeliness grounds. We affirm.

At issue is whether Wetton’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial was “pending”—and therefore tolled AEDPA’s one-year limitations period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2)— only until the Washington Supreme Court denied review, or until the Clerk of the Washington Court of Appeals subsequently entered a mandate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2) (“The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.”); Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1004 (9th Cir.1999) (“We conclude that, for purposes of § 2244(d), the time must be tolled for the entire period in which a petitioner is appropriately pursuing and exhausting his state remedies.”).

We have previously addressed this issue and concluded that the decision of the state court, not the entry of the mandáte, ends the pendency of state court proceedings for the purposes…