WPC J3a딞nn#/n$\6qh#Bx2]@nioJٷmLd$G(i LZlg?>F!DROtuϥS#;q[{(59ɒF} LVY[#f?}rvdk1H/@;G"hIU -´XjS{2Cv c?G4GCL)(DvfBWl_3360&HXl4my#jޮ,K]ϠŒgal ̓Ă\cS Afd$m|DljxBǴ !a a QE{WL\F4IyEؠI5V _֘"bK4!M\x4ZwǶT)]B~'&|+cΫG M<5@67Ib1:D H~A M!#U'N % 0YbD 0DcL 1u 72$ 0fwV 0E 0$W 0 0 0r ^ M wY 4] q  m 0 0D 1u 72ANssU:u 0N(U,%U@QHP LaserJet 2200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,- -(;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(#(#vN> gg::i+003|xU({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  xG3MQUY]aeiBullets List,@E Z"Book Antiqua (O$http://www.fdap.org,ZAZArial (E Z(Times New Roman !ؓXXUSUS.,  _  +,ؓ  #ؓ+,k#ؓFirstDistrictAppellateProject  TrainingSeminar ` #ؓ#XXؓJanuary21,2011#ؓXXY#ؓ p  # ؓ #  ؓ KeepingtheFederalDoorOpen...  , \  FederalHabeasCheatSheet  FortheStateAppellatePractitioner# ؓ ,# L J ؓ L #L J J L##ؓ JL$#ؓ#ؓ# Wyؓ  J.BradleyOConnell#ؓ Wy#ؓ |" #ؓX#XXؓ StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject # January2011#ؓXX#4#ؓ"4#  $ 8ؓdd8  KeepingtheFederalDoorOpen...#+,"E##ؓ+,d#     L JؓFederalHabeasCheatSheet  FortheStateAppellatePractitioner#ؓ JL#  4   U ؓbyJ.BradleyOConnell  2 FirstDistrictAppellateProject,AssistantDirector  V Jan.2011#ؓ UT#  *z   CHEATSHEETDISCLAIMER  N      (Gy3"3"  32G3  0    Thisisa cheatsheet.Itsintendedasaquickreferenceguideforavoidingdefaults L  instatepracticewhichcouldcometohaunttheclientonanyfuturefederalhabeas L  petition.Itdealswiththemostcommonsituationsandisdefinitelynotintendedas L  acomprehensiveguidetothesetopics.3, ݌L(#(# Ќ  "3"  3* 2G3  0    Becausethisguideisintendedforstatepractice,ittakesaconservativeapproach, L focusingonavoidingdefaultsandexhaustionquestionsinthefirstplace.Itdoesnot L dealwithpotentialfederalcourtargumentschallengingastatecourtsinvocationof L aproceduraldefault(e.g.,stateproceduralruleisnot adequateandindependent).3* W ݌L(#(# Ќ  "3"  3 2G3  0    Formorecomprehensivetreatmentoftopicsnotedhere,seethesearticles,allof L whicharepostedonFDAPswebsite,4 O  5  www.fdap.org6O  7 ,under ResearchResources L  Articles&Outlines:3 ݌L(#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;0  2G3  0` (#(#  Soglin, AvoidingProceduralDefault&ProtectingClientsforFuturePost L AffirmanceProPerRemedies,Jan.2008. ;݌L` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;$0  2G3  0` (#(#  OConnell&Rudman, ElusiveExceptionstoWaiver&ForfeitureBars,Jan. L 2004,revisedMay2009. ;$Q݌L ` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;m0  2G3  0` (#(#  OConnell, StateHabeasCorpusUpdate&PracticeTips,March2004. ;m݌L!` (#` (# Ќ  EXHAUSTION  L# "3"  32G3  0    Explicitlyfederalizeclaims ,citingU.S.SupremeCourtcases,federalcases,and/or J%  specificprovisionsofU.S.Constitution.3݌N&!(#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;0  2G3  0` (#(#  Horrorstories:Duncanv.Henryؓ(1995)513U.S.364#ؓ#Ԁ(SupremeCourt N'"  summarilyreversesNinthCircuitsgrantofhabeasrelief;dueprocess X(#! challengeto otheroffensesevidencenotexhaustedwherestatearguments X)$" framedonlyinCal._Evid_.Code352terms);ؓBaldwinv.Reese(2004)541 X*%# U.S.27#ؓ5#Ԁ(statesupremecourtpetitioncitingOregonauthoritiesoninadequate b+&$ counseldidntapprisestatecourtoffederalnatureofclaimandconsequently l,'% didntexhaustfederalIACclaim). ;&݌#l-(&` (#` (# #Ќ  " ;"   ;0  2G3  0` (#(#  Dontforgettheobvious:e.g.,Strickland,notPopeforIAC;6thAmen.for  anyMarsdenclaim;dueprocess(Patev.Robinson,etc.)for1368;Jackson  v.Va.forsufficiency. ; ݌` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;0  2G3  0` (#(#  Ideally,federalizeinheadingorsubheading,butitdoesnthavetobe  cumbersome. ;݌` (#` (# Ќ  " "   0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  E.g., FederalDueProcessisfineandmuchmorereadable_tha_Ԁ in   ViolationoftheDueProcessClauseofthe_Fourtheenth_ԀAmendmentof   theUnitedStatesConstitution. ݌  (# (# Ќ  "3"  32G3  0    MustraiseinCourtofAppealbriefing, notenoughtoraiseforfirsttimein   petitionforreview ,Castillev.Peoples(1989)489U.S.346.(Presumably,thisrule    alsoappliestoargumentraisedforfirsttimeinrehearingpetition.)3 ݌ (#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;0  2G3  0` (#(#  Possibleexception:noopportunitytoraiseuntilafterappellateopinion. ;݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " "    0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  E.g.,landmarkSupremeCourtcasedecidedafterappellateopinion   (howmanyBlakelyclaimswerepreservedin2004).  ݌  (# (# Ќ  " "   9"0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Stateappellateopiniongivesrisestoadistinctclaim,suchasdue  processviolationforunforeseeablejudicialenlargementofpenalstatute  (e.g.,ifstateappellateopinionexplicitlyrejectspriorstateprecedent  supportingclaim). 9"f"݌ (# (# Ќ  " ;"   ;?$0  2G3  0` (#(#  Distinction:forhabeasclaims,itsnotnecessaryto gouptheladder.Claim  raisedforfirsttimeinoriginalhabeaspetitiontoCal.SupremeCourtis  exhausted(providedCal.SupremeCourtdoesntexplicitlydenyiton  proceduralgrounds). ;?$l$݌` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  3G&2G3  0    MustraiseinCaliforniaSupremeCourt .O'Sullivanv.Boerckel(1999)526U.S.  838.(Fordirectappealclaims:bytimelypetitionforreview;forhabeasclaims:by   eitherpetitionforreviewornew originalhabeaspetition.)3G&t&݌ (#(# Ќ  PROCEDURALDEFAULT(a.k.a.WAIVER)    "3"  3Z(2G3  0    AnytimeCourtofAppealdescribesaclaimas waivedor forfeited,youvegot   aproceduraldefaultwhichmaybarfederalreviewofthatclaim.3Z((݌! (#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;)0  2G3  0` (#(#  Proceduraldefaultwheneverappellateopinionexplicitlydescribesclaimas "  waived,evenifitgoesontorejectclaimonmerits,asalternativebasis.Harris #  v.Reed(1989)489U.S.255,264fn.10. ;))݌$ ` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  3+2G3  0    Trialleveldefaults!overcomingtheotherguysmistakes. 3++݌% !!(#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;,0  2G3  0` (#(#  MastertheinsandoutsofCaliforniawaiverlaw.SeeOConnell&Rudman, &""  ElusiveExceptionstoWaiver&ForfeitureBars(postedonFDAPsweb '## site). ;,,݌($$` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;".0  2G3  0` (#(#  CasebycasejudgmentwhethertoanticipatewaiverinAOBorwaitandsee )%% whetherAGassertswaiver. ;".O.݌*&&` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;d/0  2G3  0` (#(#  Whereadequacyofpreservationisdoubtful,IACisonefallback,butnotthe +'' onlyone.Asoutlinedin ElusiveExceptions,etc.,alsoconsideralternative  groundsfor_cognizability_.E.g.: ;d//݌` (#` (# Ќ  " "   :10  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Pen.CodeXXؓ#ؓXX1#Ԁ1259,instructionalerroraffecting substantialrights. :1g1݌ (# (# Ќ  " "   20  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Peoplev._Partida_(2005)37Cal.4th428(federalclaimcognizable  wherestatelawobjectionbelowapprisedjudgeofcorrectstandardand  constitutionalclaimonlyconcerns consequencesoftheerror(e.g.,   dueprocessviolationfrom_Evid_.Code352error)). 22݌  (# (# Ќ  " "   50  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Futility,Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,820. 5A5݌  (# (# Ќ  " "   ,60  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Appellatediscretionandthe Williamsfootnote.Exceptfor   evidentiaryerrors,whichmustberaisedbelow(_Evid_.Code353,   354),appellatecourthasinherentdiscretiontoconsidermostother   kindsofclaims,evenifinadequatelypreserved.Peoplev.Williams   (1998)17Cal.4th148,161162&fn.6. ,6Y6݌  (# (# Ќ  " "   80  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Changeinthelaw,Peoplev.Black(2007)41Cal.4th799( BlackII). 88݌  (# (# Ќ  " ;"   ;90  2G3  0` (#(#  IfyouregoingtoraiseIACtogetaroundpotentialwaiverproblem,doitright:  _AOB_,Supp._AOB_Ԁorhabeaspetition,notARB(seebelow). ;9&:݌` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  3;2G3  0    Appellateleveldefaults!avoidingmistakesofyourown. 3;;݌(#(# Ќ  " ; "   ;<0  2G3  0` (#(#  Directappeal: DonteventhinkaboutraisingIACoranyothernewclaim  forfirsttimeinreplybrief. E.g.,Peoplev.Dunn(1996)40Cal.App.4th  1039,1055. ;<<݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  "  "   C>0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  IfcaughtoffguardbyAGswaiverargumentandneedtoassertIAC,   seekleavetofileasupplementalbriefand/orraiseIACinahabeas   petition. C>p>݌  (# (# Ќ  "  "   ?0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Samegoesforanydistinctsubclaimnotraisedin_AOB_. ? @݌  (# (# Ќ  " ir "   irA0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  E.g.,if_AOB_Ԁcharacterizedevidentiaryerrorasconfrontation   violation,addingadueprocessrationaleinARBwouldlikelybe   considereda newclaim. irA@A݌ (#(# Ќ  " ir "   irB0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  EvenoutsideIACcontext,Cal.appellatecourtsseemtobe   takingastricterlineonwhenanewlineofargumentinanARB   willbedeemeda newclaim. irBC݌! (#(# Ќ  " ; "   ;D0  2G3  0` (#(#  Avoidstatehabeasdefaults.SeeOConnell, StateHabeasCorpusUpdate, "  etc.(onFDAPswebsite). ;DD݌# ` (#` (# Ќ  "  "   E0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Fileyourhabeaspetitionwithoutanyarguablyunreasonabledelay $  (eventhoughwedontreallyknowexactlywhatthetimelimitis). E F݌% !! (# (# Ќ  " ir "   irmG0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  Ruleofthumbforhabeaspetitioninappellatecourtduring & "" pendencyofappeal:willlikelybeconsideredconcurrentlywith ' ## appeal,solongaspetitioncomesinduringthebriefing(before ( $$ ornottoolongafterARB). irmGG݌) %%(#(# Ќ  " ir "   irsI0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  Riskoftimelinessrejectionorrefusaltoexerciseappellate * && jurisdictionifargumenthasbeencalendaredand/ordecisionis + '' imminent. irsII݌(#(# Ќ  " ir "   irK0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  ConsultwithFDAPif,despitediligence,arentabletocomplete  petitionuntilverylateintheappeal. irKAK݌(#(# Ќ  "  "   L0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2G3  0h(#(#  Iflegitimateexplanationfordelay,petitionshouldntbe  barred,butpossiblyappellatecourtwontexercise  jurisdictionandwillrequireasuperiorcourtfiling. LL݌ h(#h(# Ќ  "  "   _N0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Otherstatehabeasproceduralbars:Mostclaimswhichwereorcould   havebeenraisedondirectappeal. _NN݌  (# (# Ќ  " ir "   irO0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  ButthatbardoesntapplytoIACclaims,evenonesbasedon   appellaterecord.InreRobbins(1998)18Cal.4th770,814fn.   34. irOO݌ (#(# Ќ  " ir "   ir[Q0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  Otherimportantexceptions: ir[QQ݌ (#(# Ќ  "  "   hR0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2G3  0h(#(#  Unauthorizedsentence/ excessofjurisdictionclaims. hRR݌ h(#h(# Ќ  "  "   S0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2G3  0h(#(#  Changeinthelaw,e.g.newCal.SupremeCourtcase   alteringsubstantivecriminallaw. SS݌h(#h(# Ќ  CERT.PETITIONS,RETROACTIVITY,AND CLEARLYESTABLISHED  SUPREMECOURTLAWUNDERAEDPA   "3 "  3U2G3  0    Generalrule:acert.petitiontoU.S.SupremeCourtisnotnecessarytoexhausta  claim.Properpresentationofafederalclaimtostatesupremecourtisenough.3UU݌(#(# Ќ  "3 "  3W2G3  0    But,undersomecircumstances,mayneedtofileacert.petition,whereclaimbased  onarecentlydecidedorstillpendingSupremeCourtcase.3WLW݌(#(# Ќ  "3 "  3wX2G3  0    Teagueretroactivity:Withsomeexceptions,nofederalhabeasreliefifclaimrestson  a newrule,establishedbySupremeCourtopinionissuedafterstatedecision  becamefinalondirectreview.Teaguev.Lane(1989)489U.S.288.3wXX݌(#(# Ќ  " ; "   ;PZ0  2G3  0` (#(#  Finality:DateonwhichSupremeCourtdeniesatimelycert.petitionorlast  dayonwhichatimelycert.petitioncouldhavebeenfiled(90daysafterstate  supremecourtdenialofreviewondirectappeal). ;PZ}Z݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  "3 "  3\2G3  0    TheAEDPA clearlyestablishedconundrum.3\C\݌!(#(# Ќ  " ; "   ;\0  2G3  0` (#(#  Federalhabeasreliefavailableonlyifstatedecisionwas contrarytoor "  unreasonableapplicationof clearlyestablishedfederallaw,asdeclaredby # U.S.SupremeCourt.28U.S.C.2254(d)(1). ;\)]݌$ ` (#` (# Ќ  "  "   ^0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  NotethatclaimmustrestonSupremeCourtprecedents,notjustfederal % ! circuitcases. ^^݌&!" (# (# Ќ  " ; "   ;`0  2G3  0` (#(#  Timingof clearlyestablishedcomparison.SupremeCourthasgiventwo '"# formulationsinthesameopinion: ;`F`݌(#$` (#` (# Ќ  "  "   ma0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  time...statecourtconvictionbecamefinal,Williamsv.Taylor,529 )$% U.S.362,390(2000)(Stevens,J.,fortheCourt)(i.e.,thesameas *%& Teagueretroactivitystandard);or maa݌+&' (# (# Ќ  "  "   4c0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  timeoftherelevantstatecourtdecision,Williamsat412(OConnor,  J.,fortheCourt)(alsopassinglyquotedinsomesubsequentopinions). 4cac݌ (# (# Ќ  "  "   d0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  NinthCircuitopinionstoohaveemployedbothformulations dd݌ (# (# Ќ  " ; "   ;e0  2G3  0` (#(#  Uncertainwhetherfederalhabeasreliefavailable,whereclaimreliesona  SupremeCourtopiniondecidedafterstateappellatedecisionbutbeforethat  decisionbecame finaluponexpirationofthecert.deadline.Cf.Thompson   v.Runnels(9thCir.2010)621F.3d1007(majoritydeclinestoresolveissue   becausestatehadntraisedit).Apetitionforrehearingenbanc(inwhichstate   isattemptingtoraiseissue)iscurrentlypendinginThompson. ;e f݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " ; "   ;h0  2G3  0` (#(#  Circuitsplit:ThirdandSixthCircuitshavereachedoppositeconclusionsand   cert.petitionsarecurrentlypendinginbothcases.LikelySupremeCourtwill   grantcert.anddecideissueduring20112012Term. ;hi݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  "3 "  3j2G3  0    Safestcourseinthemeantime.3jj݌ (#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;k0  2G3  0` (#(#  StillpendingleadSupremeCourtcase: Ifyourclaimmaydependonthe   dispositionofanotyetdecidedSupremeCourtcase,shoulddefinitely  petitionforcertiorari (justasmanyCaliforniapractitionersdidduring  pendencyofCunninghamv.California) . Otherwise,evenifleadSupreme  Courtcasecomesoutfavorably,claimislikelytobeTeaguebarredbecause   yourcasebecame finalpriortoissuanceoftheSupremeCourtopinion ;kk݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;n0  2G3  0` (#(#  RecentlydecidedSupremeCourtcase .IffavorableSupremeCourtcase   decidedduringintervalbetweenyourstateappellatedecisionandthe   finalitydate,claimmaybebarredunderAEDPA ongroundthattherule   wasnt clearlyestablishedattimeof relevantstatecourtdecision(Justice  OConnorsformulationinWilliamsv.Taylor).Toavoidthatrisk, shouldfile  acert.petitionandaskSupremeCourtfor GVR (Grant,Vacate&  Remandtostatecourt). ;nn݌` (#` (# Ќ  AEDPASTATUTEOFLIMITATIONS   "3"  3r2G3  0    Unlike proceduraldefaultorinadequateexhaustion,whichmaybardiscreteclaims, ! alimitationstimebarwillbartheentirefederalpetition.3rBr݌"(#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;|s0  2G3  0` (#(#  E.g.,iffederalpetitionisdeemeduntimelyongroundthatastatehabeas # petitiondidnttollthestatute,theentirefederalpetitionwillbebarred $  (includingclaimsfromboththestateappealandthestatehabeas). ;|ss݌%!!` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  3Lu2G3  0    UsualAEDPAdeadlineis oneyearfromdateconvictionbecame finalondirect &"" review .28U.S.C.2244(d)(1)(A).Wherenocert.petition, AEDPAdeadlinewill '## ordinarilybeoneyearfromdatecert.petitioncouldhavebeenfiled(90days ($$ fromCal.SupremeCourtdenial). 3Luyu݌)%%(#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;cw0  2G3  0` (#(#  Generally,thisistheonlydateonwhichyoushouldadviseclientconsidering *&& apro.per.federalpetition. ;cww݌+''` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  3x2G3  0    Other,muchlesscommon,datesforcommencementoftheoneyearperiod.See  _Soglin_, AvoidingProceduralDefault,etc.(on_FDAP_Ԁsite)forfurtherdiscussion:3xx݌(#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;\z0  2G3  0` (#(#  Removalofstatecreatedimpedimenttofiling,28U.S.C.XXؓ#ؓXX{#Ԁ2254(d)(1)(B). ;\zz݌` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;{0  2G3  0` (#(#  Dateonwhichconstitutionalright newlyrecognizedbySupremeCourt,id.,  XXؓ#ؓXX|#Ԁ2254(d)(1)(C). ;{{݌` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;@}0  2G3  0` (#(#  Date factualpredicatecouldhavebeendiscovered,id.,XXؓ#ؓXX ~#Ԁ2254(d)(1)(D). ;@}m}݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  3~2G3  0    Federallimitationsperiod tolledduringpendencyofa properlyfiledstatehabeas   petition,28U.S.C.2244(d)(2).3~~݌ (#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;0  2G3  0` (#(#  Dontcounton tolling! Toomuchroomformiscalculationonpetitioners   partanduncertaintyhowcourtswilltreatperiodsofpendencyofastate    petitionsand gapsbetweenstatefilings. ;#݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;ā0  2G3  0` (#(#  Mostfrequentcauseofpetitioners,especiallypro.per.inmates,blowingthe   federaldeadlineisconfusionregardingeffectofpost_affirmance_Ԁstatehabeas   petitions. ;ā݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;}0  2G3  0` (#(#  Evenwherestatepetitionisdeemed properlyfiled, itonlytollsthefederal  statute,itdoesntrestartit.  ;}݌` (#` (# Ќ  " ;"   ;ل0  2G3  0` (#(#  Ifstatecourtdenieshabeaspetitionasuntimely(suchasbyacitetoClarkor  Robbins)oronsomeotherproceduralground,thefederalstatutewontbe  tolledduringpendencyofthatstatepetition.ؓPacev._DiGuglielmo_(2005)544  U.S.408#ؓe#. ;ل݌` (#` (# Ќ  " "   I0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Andthepetitionermaynotknowuntilitstoolate.E.g.,_Lakey_Ԁv.  _Hickman_(9thCir.Jan.5,2011)__F.3d__,2011WL13922.(For  example,ifpetitionerfilesstatepetitionbeforetheoneyearpost  finalityperiodruns(e.g.,11monthsafterfinalitydate)butstatecourt  deniesitontimelinessgroundsafterthatdeadline(e.g,13monthsafter  finality),theresnotollingforthetimeinwhichstatepetitionwas  pending,andanylaterfederalpetitionwillbetimebarred.) Iv݌ (# (# Ќ  " ;"   ;׊0  2G3  0` (#(#  Theperilsof gaptolling. ;׊݌` (#` (# Ќ  " "   Ë0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  IfpetitionergoesuptheladderofCaliforniacourtsinatimelyfashion   (i.e.,superiorcourt,appellatecourt,Cal.SupremeCourt),federal ! statutewillbetolledforentireperiodfromfilingofsuperiorcourt " petitionthroughCal.SupremeCourtdenial(includingduringthe gap # betweenalowercourtdenialandfilinginhighercourt).Careyv. $  _Saffold_(2002)536U.S.214. Ë݌%!! (# (# Ќ  " "   0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  But,evenifstatecourtdenialdidntcitetimeliness,no gap &"" tollingiffederalcourtbelievestheresbeenunreasonabledelay '## betweenstatecourtfilings . ێ݌($$ (# (# Ќ  " "   e0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Sixmonthgap betweenlowercourtdenialandnextstatecourtfiling ) %% is presumptivelyuntimely .ؓEvansv.Chavis(2006)546U.S.189#ؓ#. e݌*$&& (# (# Ќ  " "   00  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Anygapofmorethan3060daysrunsriskofbeingconsidered +0'' _unreasonable .E.g.,Chafferv.Prosper(9thCir.2010)592F.3d1046,  1048(unexplainedgapsof115daysand101daysbetweenstatecourt  filings);seealso_Lakey_Ԁv._Hickman_(9thCir.Jan.5,2011)__F.3d__,  2011WL13922. 0]݌ (# (# Ќ  " ir"   ir0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  Maybeabletojustifygreaterintervalbeforeappellatehabeas  filing,wheresuperiorcourtconductedanextensiveevidentiary   hearing.SeeMaxwellv.Roe(9thCir.Nov.30,2010)__F.3d   __,2010WL4925429. ir݌ (#(# Ќ  " ;"   ;0  2G3  0` (#(#  Possiblesolutionwhereuncertainwhetherstatehabeasfilingswillbeconsider   untimely.Rhinesv.Weber(2005)544U.S.269. ;+݌  ` (#` (# Ќ  " "   a0  0` (#(#2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Can filea mixedfederalpetition ,containingbothexhaustedand   unexhaustedclaims, andaskthefederalcourttostayproceedings on   ituntilcompletionofstateexhaustion. a݌  (# (# Ќ  " ir"   ir)0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  Ifstatecourtultimatelydenieshabeaspetitionasuntimely,the   otherclaimsofthefederalpetition(suchasthoseexhaustedon   directappeal)canstillproceed ir)V݌ (#(# Ќ  " ir"   ir0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  Risk:Rhinesdoesnotauthorizesuchstaysasaroutine   procedure.Petitionermustshow goodcausewhyhedidnt   completeexhaustionprocessearlier,andfederalcourthas   discretioninevaluatingsufficiencyof goodcauseshowing.   E.g.,_Wooten_Ԁv.Kirkland(9thCir.2008)540F.3d1019. ir݌ (#(# Ќ  " ir"   ir0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2G3  0 (# (#  Also,Rhinesstayprocedureisonlyavailablefor mixed   petitions!i.e.,petitionsinwhichsomeclaimsarefully   exhausted.Federalcourtcantgrantastayifnoneoftheclaims   hasbeenexhausted.Raspberryv.Garcia(9thCir.2006)448   F.3d1150. ir݌ (#(# Ќ  MAKINGITEASYFORTHECLIENT    "3"  302G3  0    Always adviseclientofthefederaldeadline (90daysplus1year).30]݌! (#(# Ќ  "3"  3/2G3  0    Tellhimorherwheretofile ,includingaddress:EasternDist.forcasesfrom " _Solano_ԀCounty;NorthernDist.forallothercasesfromFirstDist.counties.)3/\݌#(#(# Ќ  "3"  32G3  0    Sendclientfederalhabeasforms designedforpro.per.filings(availableon_FDAP_s $  websiteandonthefederalcourtsrespectivesites)3݌%!!(#(# Ќ  "3"  3=2G3  0    SuggestthatclientattachyourCal.SupremeCourtpetitionforreviewand &"" incorporateitsargumentsbyreference whenfillingoutthefederalform.