Prison Law Office p. 11
State Court Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus (revised June 2019)
delay” in filing.
Courts measure timeliness from the date that you knew or should have known the
information supporting your petition.
If it has been more than a couple of months between that date
and when you file your petition, you should tell the court why you did not file the petition earlier.
Filing your petition as soon as possible will also help protect your rights if you might want to
file a federal habeas corpus petition after you finish with your state habeas corpus petition. There are
strict federal habeas timelines.
Those federal time limits are “tolled” (the time clock stops running)
in some circumstances, including while you have a “properly filed” state habeas corpus petition in the
courts.
However, the rules about tolling are complicated, and some or all of the time when you were
trying to file a state habeas corpus petition might not be tolled if there was an “unreasonable” delay
in bringing the state habeas petition or in filing the state petition to the next court level.
A period of
30 to 60 days between a lower court denial and the filing of a habeas petition in a higher court is
presumptively reasonable.
Otherwise, there is no “bright-line” rule about how much delay is
“unreasonable” and courts have reached various decisions.
43
In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 459 [146 Cal.Rptr.3d 297]; In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 828 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373].
A petition that challenges a conviction or sentence that is not authorized by law may be brought at any time. In re
Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 842 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373]. Also, a court may excuse delay in a death penalty case if: (1)
there was significant constitutional error without which no reasonable jury would have convicted you, (2) you are
actually innocent, (3) the death penalty was imposed by a court that had a “grossly misleading profile of the you”
without which it would not have imposed the death penalty, or (4) you were convicted or sentenced under an invalid
statute. In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 [146 Cal.Rptr.3d 297].
44
In re Douglas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 236 [132 Cal.Rptr.3d 582]; In re Lucero (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 38 [132 Cal.Rptr.3d
499]. For example, if there is a change in the law that applies retroactively, you should file your claim based on the
new law within a reasonable time after the date on which the change took effect. In re Lucero (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th
38 [132 Cal.Rptr.3d 499] (petition filed ten months after change in law went into effect deemed timely because
petitioner had limited legal access).
45
In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 [146 Cal.Rptr.3d 297]; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509]; In re Swain
(1949) 34 Cal.2d 300; In re Moss (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 913 [221 Cal.Rptr. 645]; In re Sanders (1999) 21 Cal.4th 697 [87
Cal.Rptr.2d 899] (good cause for delay in a capital case where an attorney had essentially abandoned the petitioner).
46
A federal habeas petition usually must be filed within one year of either: 1) the conclusion of the state court review;
2) the date that an unconstitutional impediment to filing was removed; 3) the date a newly recognized retroactive right
was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court; or 4) the date that the facts behind the claim “could have been discovered”
through “the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
47
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Artuz v. Bennett (2000) 531 U.S. 4 [121 S.Ct. 361; 148 L.Ed.2d 213]; Smith v. Duncan (9th Cir.
2001) 274 F.3d 1245
48
Carey v. Saffold (2002) 536 U.S. 214 [122 S.Ct. 2134; 153 L.Ed.2d 260]; Evans v. Chavis (2006) 546 U.S. 189 [126 S.Ct.
846; 163 L.Ed.2d 684].
49
Evans v. Chavis (2006) 546 U.S. 189 [126 S.Ct. 846; 163 L.Ed.2d 684].
50
Chaffer v. Prosper (9th Cir. 2010) 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (no tolling for 115 days between denial of habeas petition by
superior court and refiling in the court of appeal, or for 101 days between denial of petition by the court of appeal
and filing in the California Supreme Court); Waldrip v. Hall (9th Cir. 2008) 548 F.3d 729, 734 (no tolling during an
unjustified eight-month delay between denial of habeas petition by a lower court and refiling in the California Supreme
Court); Gaston v. Palmer (9th Cir. 2006) 447 F.3d 1165, 1167 (no tolling for unexplained gaps of 15 months, 18 months
and 10 months); Culver v. Director of Corrections (C.D. Cal. 2006) 450 F.Supp.2d 1135, 1140-1141 (intervals of 97 and 71
days between state petitions were unreasonable); Osumi v. Giurbino (C.D. Cal. 2006) 445 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1158-1159
(96 and 98 day intervals were not unreasonable in complex case).