Gonzalez v. McDowell

Background

Jose Francisco Gonzalez sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state convictions. In 2018, a San Francisco County Superior Court jury convicted him of two counts involving oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child, one count of committing a forcible lewd act on a child, and one count of committing a lewd act on a child. A sentence of 23 years to life was imposed in 2019.

The state appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on October 22, 2020, while ordering a correction to the abstract of judgment. The state supreme court denied review on January 13, 2021. The federal court determined that the convictions became final 90 days later, on April 13, 2021. It concluded that the correction to the abstract of judgment did not change that date because the correction occurred before the federal limitations period began and did not involve resentencing.

Timeliness

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act provides a one-year limitations period for most federal petitions challenging state-court convictions. The court concluded that Gonzalez’s deadline was April 14, 2022. Applying the prisoner-mailbox rule, the court treated May 25, 2022—the date Gonzalez signed the petition—as the earliest possible filing date. The petition was therefore untimely even using that earlier date; the envelope showed a later handwritten date and postmark.

A properly filed state post-conviction petition can pause the limitations period while it is pending, a process called statutory tolling. Gonzalez admitted that he had not filed any state habeas petitions concerning his convictions, so the court found no statutory tolling applied. The court also considered equitable tolling, an exception that may extend a deadline when a petitioner diligently pursues his rights and an extraordinary circumstance prevents timely filing. Because Gonzalez did not respond to the motion to dismiss, the court found that he had not made that showing.

Disposition

The court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely and dismissed the petition. It directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue, while noting that Gonzalez could seek such a certificate from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order.