Robertson v. Santoro

Background

Charles D. Robertson, an unrepresented prisoner, filed a federal petition challenging his 2013 conviction in San Francisco County Superior Court for first-degree murder. He was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison. His second amended petition asserted ten claims involving jury selection, evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, cumulative error, insufficient evidence, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.

The court had previously stayed the case so Robertson could exhaust some claims in state court. After completing that process, he filed the second amended petition on July 11, 2019, adding Claims 7, 8, and 10. Those claims alleged that trial counsel failed to investigate and present a mental-state defense, appellate counsel failed to challenge trial counsel’s handling of Robertson’s mental state, and trial counsel failed to communicate a favorable plea offer. Claim 9 repeated Claim 3.

Claims 7, 8, and 10

The respondent moved to dismiss Claims 7, 8, and 10 as untimely under the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The court first considered whether the claims related back to the original petition. Under the relation-back rule, a later claim can use the original filing date only when it arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence and shares a common core of operative facts with a timely original claim.

The court concluded that Claims 7, 8, and 10 did not relate back to Claims 1 through 6, the claims that were exhausted when the original petition was filed. The court also determined that the later claims were filed after the federal limitations period expired. The conviction became final on November 22, 2016, and the one-year period began running on November 23, 2016.

The court gave Robertson statutory tolling, meaning the limitations period was paused while certain properly filed state petitions were pending. It did not toll several gaps between state petitions because the delays were unreasonable and unexplained. The court concluded that the limitations period expired on July 22, 2018. Robertson filed the second amended petition containing Claims 7, 8, and 10 on July 11, 2019. The court found no basis for equitable tolling, which can extend a deadline when a person diligently pursues rights but an extraordinary circumstance prevents timely filing. It therefore dismissed Claims 7, 8, and 10 as untimely.

Disposition

The court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Claims 7, 8, and 10 because the petition containing them was filed after the limitations period expired. It also dismissed Claim 9 as duplicative of Claim 3. Claims 1 through 6 remained for adjudication.

Judge Edward Chen ordered the respondent to file an answer or other response to Claims 1 through 6 by March 6, 2020. Robertson’s reply was due April 3, 2020. The opinion does not state whether the dismissals were with or without prejudice.