Schmidt v. Neuschmid

Background

Lonnie Glenn Schmidt sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state convictions. In 2016, he pleaded no contest in Santa Clara Superior Court to five counts of recording a false instrument and one count of using personal identifying information without authorization. The state court imposed a sentence of five years and eight months.

The California Supreme Court denied Schmidt’s petition for direct review on March 21, 2018. Because he did not seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court, the 90-day period for doing so expired on June 19, 2018. The one-year limitations period under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) therefore began on June 20, 2018.

Schmidt filed a state habeas petition on December 17, 2018. The California Supreme Court denied it on May 15, 2019, as successive and because it raised claims that could have been brought on appeal. Schmidt filed this federal habeas action on August 20, 2019. The court treated that as the filing date rather than the later date shown on the docket.

Analysis

The court rejected Schmidt’s argument that AEDPA’s one-year limitations period did not apply because, in his view, the state judgment was invalid. The court explained that AEDPA applies to § 2254 petitions filed after the statute’s effective date.

The court determined that the federal filing deadline was June 21, 2019, making Schmidt’s August 20, 2019 petition untimely. It then considered statutory tolling, which pauses the limitations period while a properly filed state collateral-review application is pending. The court held that Schmidt’s state petition was not properly filed for tolling purposes because the California Supreme Court denied it as successive, so the petition did not pause the federal deadline.

The court also considered equitable tolling, an exceptional extension of the deadline available when a petitioner pursued his rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. Schmidt’s opposition argued the merits of his case but did not claim that tolling was appropriate. The court found no extraordinary circumstance in the record and held that equitable tolling was unavailable.

Disposition

The court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely and dismissed the petition. It stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue, directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the respondent, and close the file.