Sandoval v. Jones
447 F. App'x 1
10th Cir.2011Background
- Sandoval, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a COA to challenge the district court’s denial of his §2254 petition.
- He was convicted of two counts of First Degree Felony Murder and sentenced to consecutive life terms on August 24, 2006; direct appeal affirmed July 13, 2007.
- Post-conviction relief was denied by the state district court (June–August 2008), affirmed by the OCCA on September 8, 2008.
- Sandoval filed federal habeas corpus petition on September 11, 2009, more than a year after state relief was denied, which the district court deemed time-barred under §2244(d)(1).
- The district court also denied a COA; this court grants/denies COA and dismisses the appeal, and denies in forma pauperis status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling saves the untimely petition | Sandoval argues extraordinary circumstances deserved tolling. | Sandoval failed to show diligence or rare, exceptional circumstances. | Equitable tolling not warranted; delay not shown as extraordinary. |
| Whether actual innocence tolls the AEDPA deadline | Sandoval asserts actual innocence supports tolling. | Claim lacks a colorable basis; no new reliable evidence presented. | No colorable actual-innocence claim; tolling denied. |
| Whether the COA standard requires a different approach given untimeliness | COA should be granted to address merits if claims could be debatable. | Sandoval must show debatable merits; he did not. | COA denied; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (S. Ct. 2010) (AEDPA statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling)
- Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799 (10th Cir. 2000) (rare circumstances support tolling; burden on petitioner is high)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (standard for substantial showing required for COA)
- Taylor v. United States, 454 F.3d 1075 (10th Cir. 2006) (to obtain COA, debatable whether district court’s resolution was correct)