Smith v. Spearman

Background

Anthony Smith filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a procedure for challenging unlawful custody or a conviction, based on a 2009 burglary conviction from Alameda County Superior Court. Spearman moved to dismiss under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Smith was sentenced on January 8, 2010. After an appeal, the California Court of Appeal sent the case back for the trial court to strike or impose a term for Smith’s fourth prior conviction and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. On December 5, 2011, the trial court struck that prior conviction and filed an amended abstract of judgment. On January 4, 2019, it filed a second amended abstract that was essentially the same as the earlier amended abstract but added a reference to California Penal Code section 667.6(c)(21), along with the previously reported reference to sections 667(b)-(i) or 1170.12.

Statute-of-Limitations Issue

The court explained that Smith’s federal petition appeared to have been filed less than one year after the 2019 second amended abstract. It likely would not be timely if that document was not a new judgment, because the limitations period would have begun in or around 2011.

Spearman argued that the second amended abstract did not create a new judgment because it only corrected a clerical omission in the original abstract. The court stated that the legal principle supporting that argument appeared correct: an amended abstract that corrects a typographical or recording error does not change the underlying judgment and does not create a new judgment. But the court found that Spearman had not provided enough evidence to show that the 2019 document was actually only a clerical correction. The record did not include the original sentencing transcript, court minutes from January 4, 2019, or letters from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation requesting a correction.

The court also questioned the reference to section 667.6(c)(21). It had not found that subsection, and section 667.6 appeared potentially unrelated because it concerns sex offenses while Smith’s conviction was for burglary. The court directed that any new motion should address whether the subsection exists, how any error would be corrected if it does not, and whether the reference changed the underlying judgment if it was not included in the 2010 oral sentence.

Disposition

The court denied Spearman’s motion to dismiss. The denial was without prejudice to filing a new motion if Spearman could show that the second amended abstract should not be treated as a new judgment for purposes of the statute of limitations. The order did not resolve whether Smith’s federal petition was ultimately timely.

The court set these deadlines: Spearman had to file either a new motion to dismiss or an answer by January 15, 2021; Smith had to file his opposition or response by February 19, 2021; and Spearman could file a reply by March 5, 2021.