WPCp F$^}X89z%a/Z]}F069}R5y4B Uyc.w䲝Γ,,V5i㓿6_fckxZ/ G=gB6̭Q]gOt2:?;A*hfCGP|LWn`;2e?%&, \m,0n8ݗXY}Zi-匕7єKf=j+i[O?^ ?rQ++YWM.fR E1ӇcK½vuJr.a)qFD!5\^_7Lu%1(B><7AhfM?5lvq*-(3>} ureRB\}ׅ`.8S#UN %% 0+U: 0)c% 1u 72 0Dw/ 0 0J0 0 0 0K 0& 0D 1Y 72N 0UkkkU @^ w4 m 0H  1sUU 72 B* 0$b ,-0 0z1 0V2 03 03 04 0F5 05 06 0;7 08 08 09 01: 0: 0y; 0< 0< 06= 0= 0> 0v? 0 @ 0@ 0bA 0A 0B 00C 0<FC 0C 0>@D 0v~D 0`D 0`TE 0`E 0.F 0`BF 08F 0F 02G D5G BH 00H 0:H 0Y4I 0_I 0I CJ 08J 0L B*M D/M D+M 0N D/O 0O 06P 0P 0:Q 0^Q ASCRR 0\S 0D8T 0<|T 1eTU6UU>SUU*UU_ UU_ {V2V 0V 0DWXRX>AY_ Y!Y[_ \>\\_ \\ 1\ 72w]U:]]]]]f^U:b !cU :!oJ[otooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo D5p B*NpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNpNp D5xp__sesame_Printer1/J-LAPTOP/Session 339,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($ <  <<  //4 Z"Book Antiqua (;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  xEGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List*+ (_2623  ..  (A Z(Times New Roman ڬ=8 p7onatha3|xU(,$337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)$1)&P d d*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   - - l" XxXXXQ9XXx   _   6Q9FederalHabeasCorpus  ToolsandResources     (Eyx   "3"  32E3  0 X   Hertz&_Liebman_, FF FederalHabeas    Practiceand  Procedure(5thed.  2005)3݌VVXQXQ Ќ  "3"  3 2E3  0 X   ADI,California   Criminal   AppellatePractice ff  Manual,Chap.9, * *  4.t X#,  5  TheCourthouse   AcrosstheStreet:   FederalHabeas v v  Corpus6 #,6l  7 Ba3 M݌: : XQXQ Ќ  "3"  3}2E3  0 X   4uv X#,  5  Gail_Weinheimer_s   Federalization  Table6#,l  7 1Ԁ(rev.9/06)3}݌JJXQXQ Ќ  "3"  3Q2E3  0 X   CapitalDefense  Network:  4w X#,  5  www.capdefnet.or ZZ g/6#,  7 D3Q~݌XQXQ Ќ  "3"  3 2E3  0 X   4{ X#,  5  FederalHabeas  Forms6 #, l  7  : jj http://www.fdap.or .. g/t-forms.shtml#ha  beas3 ; ݌XQXQ Ќ  "3"  3 2E3  0 X   4|} X#,  5  PACER6f #,| l  7 n Ԁonline >>! docketsforfederal " cases: # 4 X#,  5  http://pacer.psc.us $ courts.gov/6m #, l  7 > Ԁ#Q96#  3 ݌NN%XQXQ Ќ  ݁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  l" XxXXXQ9XXx   _   6Q9PracticeTip     (Ey3$Insomecircumstances,a  statecourtprocedural HH defaultimprovesthe    petitionerschancesfor  federalhabeasrelief.#Q96#6Q9Ԁ(See  thepracticetiponpage XX 14.)#Q96h#http://www.adi-sandiego.com/Articles/Manual2007/ManualOctober2007/Chapter%20Nine%20-%20Federal%20habeas%20corpus.pdf(3$ ! XxXXX  Q9XXx   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5 (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITEWWWW)!dxdx d,KS*CODEKp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4NV2Keyboard Kp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS  d<z:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7a(X7  ?r%2A`Arial?  Sq\  `&Times New RomanS7b(X7&  d d`)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7d(X7  ?r%2A`Arial?  Sq\  `&Times New RomanS7b(X7`)2dxd0KS.SampleKp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8KS6TypewriterKp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      kl/mVE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ ! XxXXX  Q9XXx   ($$   1  2 0CommentB  789:;<=> 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial blankhttp://www.fdap.org/downloads/articles_and_outlines/WeinheimerFederalizationTable.htmblankhttp://www.capdefnet.org((3A$ ! XxXXX  Q9XXx    `   0  (#$  0  http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B878A5CBD16BBA8988257186004C165A/$file/0456733.pdf?openelement#page=17http://www.fdap.org/t-forms.shtml#habeashttp://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/blank  xA$ XxXXXQ9XXx   `   1    _ 4 #,  5  Mendozav.Carey6#,x  7 ,(9thCir.2006)449F.3d1065,1075  (_Kleinfeld_,J.,dissenting).http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B878A5CBD16BBA8988257186004C165A/$file/0456733.pdf?openelement#page=17blankhttp://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/blank hCEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a)"//4 Z"Book Antiqua http://www.fdap.org/downloads/tools/state_habeas_materials_CADC_March_2004.pdf \ l" XxXXXQ9XXx   _   6Q9PracticeTip     (Ey3$Itisbesttoassumethat  thetimebetweenthe HH denialatalowerleveland    thefilingofanew  petitionatahigherlevel  istolledonlyforthe XX typicalperiodforan  appealbetweenthetwo   levels(e.g.60daysfor   goingfromsuperiorcourt hh  tocourtofappeal). , ,  Assumethatthefederal   courtswilldeem   unreasonabletheportion x x  ofanyintervalbeyond < <  thattypicaltimeto   appeal#Q96#.//4 Z"Book Antiqua  l" XxXXXQ9XXx   _   6Q9PracticeTip     (Ey3$#Q96#6Q9Thebestscenarioforfederal  courtreviewmaybewherethe HH statecourtfindsthefederal    claimprocedurallydefaulted  underastateproceduralbar  thatisunenforceablein XX federalcourt(perhapsbecause  itisnot adequateor    independent)orexcused   (perhapsbecauseofashowing hh  of causeandprejudice).In , ,  thatsituation,thefederalcourt   willreviewtheclaimonthe   meritsanddecideitdenovo, x x  withnodeferencetothestate < <  courtdecision.#Q96#   6Q9Relatedly,beforeseeking  rehearingwhenthestatecourt LL ofappealfailstoaddressa  federalclaim,counselmight  considerthecompetingviews  onseekingrehearingin \\ C.Gardner&R._Neuhoff_,    ExhaustionofStateRemedies  andPetitionsforRehearing#Q96#6Q9,  _CADC_Ԁ(Jan.30,2005) ll <4 ^#,  5  http://www.cadc.net/index.ph 00 p?id=76#Q96#6Q96{#,l  7 (>andH.Cohen,  ExhaustingStateRemedies,  _ADI_ԀNewsletter(Jan.2005)at ||  34 @@! <4 ^#,  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.co " m/newsletters/2005_january.p # df6Y #,m l  7 >.Allowingthestatecourt $ ofappealsfailuretoruleto PP% standuncorrectedcanleadto & denovoreviewinfederal ' courtbecausethe_AEDPA_ ( deferenceonlyappliesto ``) statecourtdecisionsonthe $ $ * merits.#Q96#//4 Z"Book Antiqua <http://www.cadc.net/index.php?id=76<http://www.adi-sandiego.com/newsletters/2005_january.pdf)!dxdx&p d Pd'''')!dxdx ! XxXXX  Q9XXx   _  (Ey3   R#xQQ9R#xQR#x FirstDistrictAppellateProject  TrainingSeminar L #Q9R#xV# Q9January26,2008#Q9 X%# H J       Q9 X XAvoidingProceduralDefault X  andProtectingClientsfor @ FuturePost-_Affirmance_  Pro-PerRemedies#Q9 H #  p  X: X, `     h      p XxXQ9  #Q9Xx#R#xQQ9JonathanD.Soglin  p StaffAttorney l! January2008 #Q9R#x-# " #Q9Q9u#  %T    `  ` 55  TableofContents  A @ z!_@ ` Q ` CIntroductiond d E .4 4 1    I.CognizableClaimsd d E .,,# 2    II.Exhaustiond d E . 20 @       III.ProceduralDefaultd d E .'6   IV.StatuteofLimitationsd d E .)90 @     m V.SubstantiveReviewinFederalCourtD .6 ? _ 13_Ԉ     )8Q9dd8 OY_j+]dTPn~1 ! ` xd d@E1 !Q a"_   Introduction   ThescopeofacourtappointmentinaCaliforniadirect  criminalappealdoesnotincludepreparing,orlitigating,a  federalhabeascorpuspetition.Thismaybeasourceofrelief  forsomebecausefederalhabeas,inthewordsofNinth   CircuitJudgeAndrewJ._Kleinfeld_,is asubjectthat   challengesthemostcapablelawyersandjudges.~ y#  1      ׀   But,asstatecourtpractitioners,werenotentirelyoffthe    hook.Effectivelyrepresentingacriminaldefendantonappeal   instatecourtinvolvespreservingfederalclaimsforpossible   federalcourthabeasreview.Whilestatepractitionershave   beenimploredtimeandagaintofederalizetheirappellate   claimsandtoexhaustthoseclaimsbypresentingthemtothe   CaliforniaSupremeCourt,properlypreparingaclientfor  federalhabeasrequiresanunderstandingoffederalhabeas  lawbeyondfederalizationandexhaustion.Aworking  knowledgeofproceduraldefault,federalhabeasstandardsof  review, andthefederalstatutesoflimitationsalso improve  thelevelofrepresentationprovidedtoourclientsinstate  court.  Belowisabriefoutlineoffederalhabeascorpustopics  whichareofusetostatecourtpractitioners,including:  cognizableclaims,exhaustion,proceduraldefault,statuteof  limitations,andthesubstantive_AEDPA_Ԁstandardsofreview.   " &   $(3y "3"  32  I  .3  0 `   CognizableClaims3݌` `  Ќ  " ;"   ;0 ` 2  A  .3  0 ` `   FederalClaimsOnly: Federalhabeasreliefisavailable'only  forviolationsofthefederalconstitution(and,rarely,  violationsoffederalstatutesortreaties).28U.S.C.2254(a). ;݌  Ќ  " ;"   ;`0 ` 2  B  .3  0 ` `   FourthAmendmentClaims :NotCognizableonfederal   habeasifstateprovidedopportunityforfullandfairlitigation.   (Stonev.Powell(1976)428U.S.465,494.) ;`݌   Ќ  &  "3"  32  II  .3  0 `   Exhaustion: Habeasreliefisonlyavailablewhenthepetitionerhas   exhaustedstateremedies(28U.S.C.2254(b)(1))(A))bypresenting   thefederalclaimtothestatehighcourt.3K݌ ` `  Ќ  " ;"   ;0 ` 2  A  .3  0 ` `   HowtoExhaust  ;݌  Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   Ataminimum,citetheapplicablefederal  'constitutionalprovisions. ݌   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   Alsocitefederalcasesbasedonthefederal  constitutionalprovision. >݌   Ќ  " "   c0 ` 0 ` ` 2  3  .3  0   Donotrelyonstatestatutesorstatecases. c݌   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  4  .3  0   Consultthefederalizationcharts. ݌   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  5  .3  0   Exhaustfactsandlaw. ݌   Ќ  &  " ;"   ; 0 ` 2  B  .3  0 ` `   Exhaustion_Caselaw_  ; ݌   Ќ  " "   !0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   PresentationOnly;DecisionontheMeritsNot " Required.Aclaimisexhaustedifitisfairly' presented # inthestatehighcourt.Allthatisrequiredis $  presentationoftheclaim.Ifthestatesupremecourt %!! rejectstheclaimonproceduralgrounds,without &"" reachingthemerits,theclaimisexhausted. x  !!݌'##   Ќ  " "   j$0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   FederalClaimMustbeFairlyPresentedtoStateHigh )%% Court j$$݌*&&   Ќ  " ir"   ir%0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  a  .3  0h    Federalclaimmustbe fairlypresentedtostate  courtsinordertogivethestateanopportunity  tocorrectviolationsoffederalrights.(_Picard_Ԁv.  Connor(1971)404U.S.270,275.) ir%%݌h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir'0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  b  .3  0h    Federalclaimmustbepresentedtostatehigh   courtinpetitionfordiscretionaryreview.   (O'Sullivanv._Boerckel_(1999)526U.S.838,   839840.) ir'(݌ h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir)0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  c  .3  0h    Examples ir))݌ h h  Ќ  " "   *0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  2(  1  )3  0h h   StatecourtEvidenceCodesection352   andstate-constitutionalmiscarriageof   justiceclaimsdidnotexhaustfederaldue  processargument.(Duncanv.Henry  (1995)513U.S.364(per_curiam_).) *+݌   Ќ  " "   ,-0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  2(  2  )3  0h h   SixthAmendmentIACof  appellate-counselclaimwasnotfairly  presentedindiscretionarypetitionfor  reviewtostatehighcourtwhere(1)  petitioncontainedclaimsoftrial!counsel  andappellatecounselIAC,and(2)  petitionerallegedtrialcounselIAC,but  notappellatecounselIAC,violated  federalconstitution.Theclaimwasnot  exhaustedalthoughfederalnatureof  appellateIACclaimwasapparentfrom   lowerstatetrialcourtopinion.(Baldwin ! v.Reese(2004)541U.S.27,3932.) ,-Y-݌"   Ќ  " "   010 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  2(  3  )3  0h h   8thamendclaimforfailuretogivejury $  instructionon_LIO_Ԁincapitalcasenot %!! exhaustedwherepetitionerdidnotcite &"" thefederalconstitution,onlycitedstate '## cases,and petitionersdaisy ($$ chain---whichdependsuponacasethat )%% wascitedbyoneofthecasesthatwas *&& citedbyoneofthecasesthatpetitioner +'' cited---istoolengthy8.(Howellv.  Mississippi(2005)543U.S.440,443  (per_curiam_).) 01]1݌   Ќ  " ir"   ir40 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  d  .3  0h    SupremeCourthasnotdecidedwhethera  federalclaimisexhaustedwhenthe   correspondingstatelawclaimispresentedto   statehighcourtandstateandfederalstandards   onissueareidentical.(Baldwin,541U.S.at33   34decliningtodecidequestion);Howell,543   U.S.at444(assumes,withoutdeciding,that   identicalstandardswouldsuffice).) ir4$5݌ h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir70 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  e  .3  0h    FactExhaustion. ir7)8݌ h h  Ќ  " "   90 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  2(  1  )3  0h h   Wheredistrictcourtconsidered  supplementalinformationthat didnot  fundamentallyalterthelegalclaim  alreadyconsideredbythedistrictcourt,  exhaustionrequirementsatisfied.  (Vasquezv._Hillery_(1986)474U.S.254,  260.) 9>9݌   Ќ  " "   ;0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  2(  2  )3  0h h   Noexhaustionwherenewevidence  regardingaudibilityofrequestfor  counselhadnotbeenpresentedtostate  courts.(Aikenv.Spalding(9thCir.1988)  841F.2d881.) ;;݌   Ќ  &  " ;"   ;=0 ` 2  C  .3  0 ` `   LitigatingUnexhaustedClaimsinFederalCourt: Howto ! litigateafederalpetitioncontaininganunexhausted'!=claimis " beyondthescopeofthematerials.Itissufficetosaythatitis # unlikelythatthefailuretoexhaustwillbeexcusedbythe $  federalcourtorwaivedbythestate,andtheclientwillhaveto %!! eitherabandontheunexhaustedclaimorreturntostatecourt &"" toexhausttheclaim,whileatthesametimemakingsurethat '## alloftheclaims"unexhaustedandexhausted"arepresented ($$ inafederalpetitionwhichcomplieswiththeoneyearstatute )%% oflimitationsdiscussedbelow. ;=>݌*&&  Ќ  " ;"   ;A0 ` 2  D  .3  0 ` `   ExceptionstoExhaustion: Thereareonlylimitedand  infrequentlyapplicableexceptionstotheexhaustion  requirement.Theexceptionsare: ;AB݌  Ќ  " "   jC0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   thereisanabsenceofavailableStatecorrective  process.28U.S.C.2254(b)(1)(B)(I) jCC݌    Ќ  " "   D0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   circumstancesexistthatrendersuchprocess   ineffectivetoprotecttherightsoftheapplicant.28   U.S.C.2254(b)(1)(B)(ii) DD݌     Ќ  " "   sF0 ` 0 ` ` 2  3  .3  0   expresswaiveroftheexhaustionrequirementbythe   state(28U.S.C.2254(b)(3) sFF݌    Ќ  " ;"   ;G0 ` 2  E  .3  0 ` `   CananExhaustedClaimBecomeUnexhaustedUpona  ChangeinLaw?  ;GH݌  Ќ  " "   I0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   FederalHabeasStatute: Anapplicantshallnotbe  deemedtohaveexhaustedtheremediesavailableinthe  courtsoftheState8ifhehastherightunderthelaw  oftheStatetoraise,byanyavailableprocedure,the  questionpresented.(28U.S.C.2254(c).) I5I݌   Ќ  " "   YK0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   AfterCunningham,mustpreviouslyexhaustedBlakely  claimsbepresentedagaintostatecourts? YKK݌   Ќ    OY    &  "3"  31M2  III  .3  0 `   ProceduralDefault: Subjecttoseveralimportantexceptions,  federalcourtreviewisgenerallyunavailableforclaimsdefaultedin  statecourt.   h      p   31M^M݌` `  Ќ  " ;"  j-]dTPn~1  ` xd d@E1 i a  ;O0 ` 2  A  .3  0 ` `   PlainStatementRule : [_I]f_Ԁitfairlyappearsthatthestate  courtresteditsdecisionprimarilyonfederallaw'"Mthiscourt   mayreachthefederalquestiononreviewunlessthestate   courtsopinioncontainsaplainstatementthatitsdecision   restsuponadequateandindependentstategrounds.   (Michiganv.Long(1983)463U.S.1032,1042,andn.7    (directappealcase);seealsoHarrisv.Reed(1989)489U.S.      255(habeascase).) ;OO݌    Ќ  " ;"   ;.S0 ` 2  B  .3  0 ` `   LastReasonedDecision: Inassessingwhetherthe   statecourtappliedaproceduralbar,thefederal   courtanalyzesthelastreasoneddecision.(_Ylst_Ԁv.   _Nunnemaker_Ԁ(1991)501U.S.797,803-04.) ;.S[S݌    Ќ  " ;"   ;RU0 ` 2  C  .3  0 ` `   DoestheStateRuleHoldUp,I.e.isitAdequate   andIndependent? Astateproceduralbarisnot   enforceableinfederalcourtunlessthestateruleis  bothadequateandindependent.(Colemanv.  Thompson(1991)501U.S.722,729.) ;RUU݌   Ќ  " ;"   ;oW0 ` 2  D  .3  0 ` `   Adequate? Stateproceduralbarmustbeadequate,     i.e.clearandconsistentlyapplied. ;oWW݌  Ќ  " "   X0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   Inorderforastateproceduralruletoprecludefederal  review,therulemustbe,firmlyestablished,regularly   followed,andconsistentlyapplied.(Fordv.Georgia ! (1991)498U.S.411,423-24;Collierv.Bayer(9thCir. " 2005)408F.3d1279,1283-84;_Calderon_Ԁv.United # StatesDistrictCourt(Bean)(9thCir.1996)96F.3d $  1126,1129.) XY݌%!!   Ќ  " "   [0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   Californiascontemporaneousobjectionrulefor '## evidentiaryissueshasbeendeemedadequate. [[݌($$   Ќ  " ir"   ir!]0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  a  .3  0h    EvidenceCodesection353barsreversalon *&& appealforevidentiaryerrorinabsenceof +'' objection.(SeePeoplev.Williams(1998)17  Cal.4th148,161-162&n.6.) ir!]N]݌h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir_0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  b  .3  0h    NinthCircuithasdeemedCalifornias  contemporaneousobjectionruleforevidentiary  claimsadequate.(_Melendez_Ԁv._Pliler_Ԁ(9thCir.   2002)288F.3d1120,1124-25.) ir_5_݌ h h  Ќ  " "   4a0 ` 0 ` ` 2  3  .3  0   Californiascontemporaneousobjectionrulefornon   evidentiaryissuesisnotadequate. 4aaa݌    Ќ  " ir"   irb0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  a  .3  0h    Ruleisnotconsistentlyappliedbecause   reviewingcourtshavediscretiontoreachmerits   ofnonevidentiaryclaimsdespitethelackofa   contemporaneousobjectioninthetrialcourt.  (Williams,17Cal.4that161-162&n.6.) irbb݌h h  Ќ  " ir"   ird0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  b  .3  0h    Inpractice,Californiacourtsvariablydeclineto  decidemeritsbecauseoffailuretoobjector  reachmeritsdespitelackofobjection. irdd݌h h  Ќ  " "   f0 ` 0 ` ` 2  4  .3  0   StateHabeasDefaults. Foradiscussionofthe  adequacyandindependenceofstatehabeasprocedural  defaultsrules,seeOConnell,4J#,  5  StateHabeasCorpus  UpdateandPracticeTips6g#,g   7 )h(March,2004),atpp.2425.  .(Caveat:the  referencedarticlewasproducedin2004andany  authorityshouldbecheckedforcurrency.) ff݌    Ќ  _&  " ;"   ;j0 ` 2  E  .3  0 ` `   Independent? Staterulemustbeindependentofthefederal " question. ;jj݌#  Ќ  " "   k0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   Astateproceduralrulethatisinterwovenwith'"jfederal %!! lawcannotbethebasisforaproceduralbarupon &"" federalhabeasreview.(Carterv._Giurbino_(9thCir. '## 2004)385F.3d1194,1197;Bennettv.Mueller(9th ($$  Cir.2003)322F.3d573,581.) kk݌)%%   Ќ  " "   In0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   Thestateproceduralruleisinterwovenwithafederal   ruleifapplicationoftheproceduralbardependsupona  determinationofwhethertherewasfederal  constitutionalerror.(Carter,385F.3dat1197(citing  Parkv.Calif.(9thCir.2000)202F.3d1146,1152and  _Ake_Ԁv.Oklahoma(1985)470U.S.68,75,105_S.Ct_.   1087,84_L.Ed_.2d53).) Invn݌    Ќ  " "   q0 ` 0 ` ` 2  3  .3  0   Californiascontemporaneousobjectionruleisnot   independentbecauseapplicationofthewaiverruleis   based,atleastinpart,uponfederalconstitutional   grounds.Californiacasesnotethe importanceof   constitutionalclaimsand issuesofpublicpolicyas   groundsforexercisingdiscretiontoreachthemeritsof   aclaim,inspiteofthelackofobjection.(InreSheena  K.,(2007)40Cal.4th875,887,esp.n.7;Peoplev.  Marchand(2002)98Cal.App.4th1056,1061;People  v.Brown(1996)42Cal.App.4th461,471;Halev.  Morgan(1978)22Cal.3d388,394.) qq݌   Ќ  " "   u0 ` 0 ` ` 2  4  .3  0   TheNinthCircuithasenforcedCalifornias  contemporaneousobjectionrule.Butinsuchcasesthe  courtdidnotaddresswhetherthecontemporaneous  objectionrulewasadequateandindependent.(E.g.  VanSicklev.White(9thCir.1999)166F.3d953,  957-58;Davisv._Woodford_(9thCir.2004)384F.3d  628,653-54;_Paulino_Ԁv.Castro(9thCir.2004)371  F.3d1083,1092-93.)In_Paulino_,thecourtmadeclear  thatthepetitionerhadnotevenarguedthattherulewas   unclear,inconsistentlyappliedornotwell-established. ! (_Paulino_,371F.3dat1092.) uu݌"   Ќ  &  " ;"   ;(z0 ` 2  F  .3  0 ` `   Cause&Prejudice 󀄀Apetitionercanovercomeaprocedural $  defaultbymakingashowingofcauseforthedefaultand %!! actualprejudice. ;(zUz݌&""  Ќ  " "   {0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   Causeisanexternalobjectivefactorwhich'$zcannot ($$ fairlybeattributedtothepetitioner.Ifthedefaultwas )%% atastagewhentherewasaconstitutionalrightto *&& counsel,attorneyineffectivenesswillconstitutecause +'' forthedefault.(Murrayv.Carrier(1986)477U.S.  478,488.)But,Ifthedefaultwasinapostconviction  proceeding,attorneyineffectivenessisnotcause.  (Colemanv.Thompson(1991)501U.S.722,752755.)   {{݌    Ќ  " ;"   ;0 ` 2  G  .3  0 ` `   &  ActualInnocence Aproceduraldefaultwillbeexcusedif,   inlightofallavailableevidence,itismore' likelythannotthat   noreasonablejurorwouldconvictpetitioneroftherelevant   crime.(_Schlup_Ԁv._Delo_(1995)513U.S.298;seealsoHousev.    Bell(2006)---U.S.----,126_S.Ct_.2064,2076-77.) ;D݌   Ќ  &  "3"  32  IV  .3  0 `   StatuteofLimitations 3=݌ ` `  Ќ  " ;"   ;0 ` 2  A  .3  0 ` `   GeneralRule: Oneyearlimitationsperiodrunsfrom' the  dateonwhichthejudgmentbecamefinalbytheconclusionof  directreviewortheexpirationofthetimeforseekingsuch  review.(28U.S.C.2244(d)(1)(A).) ;#݌  Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   Ifnocertioraripetitionisfiled,judgmentfinal"and  oneyearclockstarts"aftertimetofilecertiorari  petitionruns,i.e.90daysafterdenialofreview 3݌   Ќ  " "   †0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   Ifcertioraripetitionfiled,judgmentfinal"andone  yearclockstarts"upondenialofcertiorari. †݌   Ќ  " "   /0 ` 0 ` ` 2  3  .3  0   Theprisonmailboxruleappliestothefilingofapro  perfederalhabeaspetitionbyanincarcerated  petitioner.Thepetitionwillbedeemedfiledasofthe   datetheinmateturneditovertoprisonofficialsfor ! mailing. /\݌"   Ќ  " ;"   ;Q0 ` 2  B  .3  0 ` `   Exceptionsoneyearperiodalternativelyrunsfrom...  ;Q~݌$   Ќ  " "   i0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   thedateonwhichtheimpedimenttofilingan &"" applicationcreatedbyStateactioninviolationofthe '## ConstitutionorlawsoftheUnitedStatesisremoved,if ($$ theapplicantwaspreventedfromfilingbysuchState )%% action(28U.S.C.2244(d)(1)(B)); i݌*&&   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   thedateonwhichtheconstitutionalrightassertedwas  initiallyrecognizedbytheSupremeCourt,iftheright  hasbeennewlyrecognizedbytheSupremeCourtand  maderetroactivelyapplicabletocasesoncollateral  review(28U.S.C.2244(d)(1)(C));or ۍ݌   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  3  .3  0   thedateonwhichthefactualpredicateoftheclaimor   claimspresentedcouldhavebeendiscoveredthrough   theexerciseofduediligence.(28U.S.C.   2244(d)(1)(D).) &݌    Ќ  &  " ;"   ;0 ` 2  C  .3  0 ` `   StatutoryTolling  ;݌   Ќ  " "   ؒ0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   Thetimeduringwhichaproperlyfiledapplicationfor   'ؑStatepost-convictionorothercollateralreviewwith   respecttothepertinentjudgmentorclaimispending  shallnotbecountedtowardanyperiodoflimitation  underthissubsection.(28U.S.C.2244(d)(2).) ؒ݌   Ќ  " "   A0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   Statutorytollingdoesntrestarttheclockat 0days;  clockre-startswhereitleftoff An݌   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  3  .3  0   ProperlyFiled:Only properlyfiledstate  post-convictionpetitionsuspendsclock. ֖݌   Ќ  " ir"   ir0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  a  .3  0h    ݀ anapplicationisproperlyfiledwhenits  deliveryandacceptanceareincompliancewith  theapplicablelawsandrulesgoverningfilings.  (_Artuz_Ԁv.Bennett(2000)531U.S.4,8-9.) ir>݌ h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir=0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  b  .3  0h    Untimelystatepetitionisnot properlyfiled " anddoesnottollthelimitationsperiod.(Pacev. # _DiGuglielmo_(2005)544U.S.408,417.) ir=j݌$ h h  Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  4  .3  0   IsPending:federalclockistolledonlywhilestate &!" petitionis pending. F    L݌ '"# Ќ  " ir"   ir0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  a  .3  0h    GapTolling. InCal.,astatepetitionis )$%  pendingduringtheintervalsbetweendenialat *&& onecourtlevelandtimelyfilingofnewpetition +'' j]dTPn~ ` xd d@E 3 h h atnexthighercourt.(Careyv.  _Saffold_(2002)536U.S.214.) ir݌hh  Ќ  " ir"   ir0 ` 0 ` ` 0  2  b  .3  0h   ݀InCarey,theCourtalsostatedthat  petitionsarenotpendingduring   unreasonabledelaysbetween   levels.Andadenial onthemerits   doesnotnecessarilymeanapetition   wastimelyfiled. p    irĠ݌ hh  Ќ  " ir"   ir0 ` 0 ` ` 0  2  c  .3  0h   SixmonthdelaybetweenCalifornia   courtofappealhabeasdenialand   filingofnewhabeaspetitioninCal   Supremecourtwasunreasonable.   (Evansv.Chavis(2006)546U.S.  189.) ir݌hh  Ќ  " ir"   ir 0 ` 0 ` ` 0  2  d  .3  0h   InEvansv.Chavis,theCourtalso  heldthatasilentdenialbytheCal.    h hSupremeCourtisnotnecessarilyadenialonthe  merits. ir 6݌h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  e  .3  0h    Gaptollingappliestoasingletripupthestate  courtladder;itdoesnotapplytogapsbetween  differentroundsofhabeaspetitions. ir݌h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  f  .3  0h    Astatepostconvictionpetitionisnot pending  duringcert.proceedingsfromdenialofstate  post-convictionpetition.(Lawrencev.Florida   (2007)127_S.Ct_.1079.) irΨ݌!h h  Ќ  " ;"   ;0 ` 2  D  .3  0 ` `   &  EquitableTolling  ;݌#  Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   _SCOTUS_,withoutdeciding,assumesequitabletolling % ! appliestofederalhabeaslimitations'#Qperiod.Seee.g. &!" Lawrencev.Florida(2007)---U.S.----,127_S.Ct_. '"#  1079,1085,fn.3. ݌(#$   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   ShowingRequired:(1)petitionerpursuedrights  diligentlyand(2)extraordinarycircumstances  preventedtimelyfiling.(Id.at1085.) "݌     " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  3  .3  0   AttorneyConduct ѯ݌   Ќ  " ir"   ir0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  a  .3  0h    Mereattorneymistakeoflawdoesnot   constituteequitabletolling.Lawrencev.Florida   (2007)---U.S.----,127_S.Ct_.1079,1085   ( Attorneymiscalculation[ofdeadline]is   simplynotsufficienttowarrantequitable   tolling). irҰ݌ h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  b  .3  0h    Lowerfederalcourtshaveheldthategregious   conductbycounseldoestollthelimitations  period.(_Spitsyn_Ԁv.Moore(9thCir.2003)345  F.3d796,801;Flemingv.Evans(10thCir.  2007)481F.3d1249,1256(collectingcases).) irK݌h h  Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  4  .3  0   Mostlikelysuccessfulwheresomeforceor  circumstanceexternaltothepetitionerorcounsel  causedthedelay. ݌   Ќ  " ir"   ir 0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  a  .3  0h    E.g.Petitionerprevailsinstatehabeas,state  successfullyobtainsreversalby_SCOTUS_.  Becausepetitionerhadprevailedinstatecourt  andhadnoreasontoseekfederalreviewduring  pendencyof_SCOTUS_Ԁproceedingsandbecause,  underLawrence,theresnotollingduring   _SCOTUS_Ԁreview,thelimitationsperiodhasrun. ! This exceedinglyrareinequity...maywellbe " curedbyequitabletolling.(Lawrence,127 # _S.Ct_.at1085.) ir 6݌$ h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  b  .3  0h    LackofassistancetoSpanish-speakinginmates &"" wasgroundsforequitabletolling.(4z F#,  5  Mendozav. '## Carey6,#,Bx  7 xmԀ(9thCir.2006)449F.3d1065,1075.) ir-݌($$h h  Ќ  " ir"   ir]0 ` 0 ` ` 0 2  c  .3  0h    ActualInnocenceGatewayNinthCircuit *&& assumesactualinnocenceisagatewayto +'' federalreviewofatimebarredpetition.(_Majoy_  v.Roe(9thCir.2002)296F.3d770.) ir]݌h h  Ќ  &  "3"  3|2  V  .3  0 `   SubstantiveReviewinFederalCourt 3|݌` `  Ќ  " ;"   ;o0 ` 2  A  .3  0 ` `   StateCourtDecisionontheMeritsDeferentialStandard   ofReview.  ;o݌   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  1  .3  0   Under_AEDPA_,habeascorpusreliefmustbegrantedif   astatecourtdecisiononthemeritsis'm"contraryto,or    anunreasonableapplicationof,clearlyestablished   Federallaw,asdeterminedbytheSupremeCourtof   theUnitedStates."28U.S.C.2254(d)(1).The   "contraryto"and"unreasonableapplication"clauses   havedistinctmeanings.(Williamsv.Taylor(2000)529   U.S.362,404;Clarkv.Murphy(9thCir.2003)331  F.3d1062,1067.) ݌   Ќ  " "   10 ` 0 ` ` 2  2  .3  0   Contraryto: Adecisioniscontrarytoclearly  establishedfederallawifitfailstoapplythecorrect  controllingauthority,orifitappliesthecontrolling  authoritytoacaseinvolvingfactsmaterially  indistinguishablefromthoseinacontrollingcase,but  nonethelessreachesadifferentresult.Clark,331F.3d  at1067(citingWilliams,529U.S.at413-14). 1^݌   Ќ  " "   )0 ` 0 ` ` 2  3  .3  0   IfastatecourtdecisioniscontrarytoUSSupreme  Courtauthority,nosection2254(d)deferenceisdue  thestatecourtdecision.Butthefederalcourtmuststill   findconstitutionalerrorbecauseitmaygrantawritof ! habeascorpustoastateprisoneronlyifthatprisoner "  isincustodyinviolationoftheConstitution...ofthe # UnitedStates.(28U.S.C.224l(c)(3);_Frantz_Ԁv. $  _Hazey_(9thCir.no.05-16024,Jan.22,2008)___F.3d % ! ___,slipop.at728(enbanc).) )V݌&!"   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  4  .3  0   UnreasonableApplicationof: Astatecourt's (#$ decisioninvolvesanunreasonableapplicationof )$% federallawifthestatecourtidentifiesthecorrect *%& governinglegalprinciple...butunreasonablyapplies +&' _j]dTPn~ x$ ` xd d@E x$!9 &_   thatprincipletothefactsofthe  prisoner'scase.'Williams,529U.S.at  413,120_S.Ct_.1495.InWilliamsandin  subsequentdecisionstheSupremeCourt  hasrepeatedlyemphasizedthat"an  unreasonableapplicationoffederallaw   isdifferentfromanincorrectapplication   offederallaw.[Citations.]"Clark,331at   1067. ݌   Ќ  " "   0 ` 0 ` ` 2  5  .3  0    LastReasonedDecision. Inapplying   the_AEDPA_Ԁstandards,thefederalcourt   reviewsthestatecourtslastreasoned   decision.(Bakerv.Fleming(2005)423   F.3d1085,109193andfn.3.) ݌  Ќ  " ;"   ;0 ` 2  B  .3  0 ` `   NoStateCourtDecisionontheMeritsDe  Novoreview: Ifthestatecourtdidnot  adjudicatetheclaimonthemerits,thenthe  federalcourtreviewstheclaimdenovo.28  U.S.C.2254(d);(_Pirtle_Ԁv.Morgan(9thCir.  2002)313F.3d1160,1167-1168.) ;E݌   Ќ   `     h      p    `