Trigueros v. Adams
658 F.3d 983
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Trigueros was convicted by a California jury on December 13, 2002 of murder and four counts of attempted murder, with consecutive life-term sentences and a separate life sentence with parole eligibility.
- He timely appealed the conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel regarding trial dog-scent evidence; the Court of Appeal affirmed and the California Supreme Court denied review in 2004.
- Trigueros filed a habeas petition in the California Superior Court on October 18, 2005, which the Superior Court denied as untimely under Clark (1993).
- He pursued subsequent state petitions in the Court of Appeal (Feb 2006) and the California Supreme Court (Apr 2006 filed; timely-briefing prompted by the Supreme Court; denial June 2007).
- Trigueros filed a federal habeas petition on July 3, 2007; the district court dismissed as untimely under AEDPA's one-year limit because the state court ruling was deemed untimely.
- The Ninth Circuit held that the California Supreme Court’s request for informal briefing indicated the timeliness issue was before the court, triggering tolling and meriting remand for merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the California Supreme Court's request for informal briefing toll AEDPA? | Trigueros argues timely tolling since the Supreme Court addressed timeliness merits. | Adams contends no tolling where state petition untimely under state law and no proper tolling occurred. | Yes; the request for informal briefing signaled timeliness merits were before the court, triggering tolling. |
| Whether the Superior Court’s untimeliness ruling was overruled by the California Supreme Court’s order | Trigueros contends Robbins-like reading shows the Supreme Court implicitly found timeliness. | Adams argues no automatic inference from a merits denial; orderly state process controls. | The California Supreme Court’s briefing and merits consideration indicated timeliness was considered and petition decided on the merits. |
| Whether Trigueros's federal petition was timely filed under AEDPA given proper tolling | Trigueros claims the state petition was timely and tolled AEDPA, making his 2007 federal petition timely. | Adams maintains no tolling if the state petition was untimely by state standards and not properly filed. | Yes; the state petition was timely under California’s reasonable-standard analysis, tolling AEDPA and rendering the federal petition timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (U.S. 2002) (AEDPA tolling when state petition pending; proper filing governs tolling)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (untimely state petitions do not toll AEDPA)
- Robbins, 959 P.2d 311 (Cal. 1998) (timeliness analysis under Robbins when state court denies; burden on timeliness matters)
- Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes cases where California Supreme Court denial implies timeliness)
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (U.S. 2006) (presumptions about merits-denial vs timeliness; silent orders)
- Walker v. Martin, 131 S. Ct. 1120 (U.S. 2011) (silent or merits-only orders in California; limits on presuming timeliness)
- Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (U.S. 2002) (original writ system; tolling during state-court review)
- Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010) (state court timeliness findings affect tolling in California petitions)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1991) (defining finality and state court dispositions for timeliness)