Julius Robinson v. G. Lewis
795 F.3d 926
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Julius M. Robinson was convicted in California; direct review concluded and certiorari deadline expired August 9, 2011.
- Robinson filed a state habeas petition in Superior Court (constructive filing Nov 12, 2011); Superior Court denied it Jan 19, 2012.
- Robinson filed a petition in the California Court of Appeal 66 days after the Superior Court denial (Mar 26, 2012); the Court of Appeal denied relief Apr 5, 2012.
- Robinson then filed to the California Supreme Court 91 days after the Court of Appeal denial; the California Supreme Court denied relief Oct 24, 2012.
- Robinson filed a federal habeas petition Mar 13, 2013; the district court concluded gaps (including the unexplained 66-day gap) were not tolled and dismissed the federal petition as time‑barred.
- The Ninth Circuit panel did not resolve timeliness; instead it certified to the California Supreme Court the question whether an unexplained 66‑day delay between a California trial court denial and filing in the Court of Appeal is untimely under California law (i.e., whether the state petition was "properly filed" for AEDPA tolling).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (State/Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unexplained 66‑day gap between a lower court's denial and filing in the CA Court of Appeal renders a state habeas petition untimely for California law (and thus ineligible for AEDPA tolling). | 66 days is within a reasonable period under California's "reasonable time" standard; the filing was "properly filed" and tolled AEDPA. | 66 days exceeds the reasonable period (benchmark 30–60 days); absent good cause the filing is untimely and does not toll AEDPA. | Court declined to decide on the merits and certified the question to the California Supreme Court for authoritative state‑law guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavis v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (U.S. 2006) (federal standard for when state collateral actions are "pending"; California uses a "reasonable time" standard)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (U.S. 2002) (if a California court dismisses a habeas petition as untimely, there is no "properly filed" application for AEDPA tolling)
- Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (U.S. 2011) (California courts signal untimeliness by citing Clark and Robbins)
- Chaffer v. Prosper, 542 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2008) (Ninth Circuit sought California Supreme Court guidance on reasonable‑time standard)
- Velasquez v. Kirkland, 639 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (Ninth Circuit precedent treating delays over the 30–60 day benchmark as untimely absent good cause)
- Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2014) (explains 60 days as a benchmark and that delays beyond it require justification)