Appellate Practice
Jun. 15, 2002
Panel Denies Defendant's Request for Extension
LOS ANGELES - A federal appeals court has refused to grant more time for a Los Angeles defendant who claimed that bad advice from his court-appointed lawyer caused him to miss his deadline for filing a habeas corpus petition.
Ibrahn Ben Miranda - serving 89 years to life in state prison for first-degree murder and attempted murder - contended that his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when, after an unsuccessful appeal to the state Supreme Court, his appellate lawyer incorrectly stated in a letter how much time he had to file his habeas petition.
Under the 1996 anti-terrorism law, defendants are limited to one year to file a federal habeas petition. Miranda filed his 53 days late, requesting an extension based on ineffective assistance of counsel, according to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' statement of the facts.
U.S. District Judge Nora A. Manella in Los Angeles rejected Miranda's argument, and the 9th Circuit upheld the decision.
"The flaw in [Miranda's] logic is [that] Miranda had a right to appointed appellate counsel during the course of his direct review - and thus, as he contends, to the effective assistance of that counsel," 9th Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain wrote.
"But," O'Scannlain continued, "as the attorney's letter makes clear, her representation of Miranda in connection with Miranda's direct review had ended when she wrote the letter.
"True, the attorney generously offered some final thoughts - which apparently included a miscalculated due date, or at least a typo - in a letter after the close of her representation. Those thoughts, however, pertained not to the direct review for which she was appointed, but to habeas relief, for which she was not. And Miranda had no right to that advice."
Judges Pamela Ann Rymer and Sidney R. Thomas concurred.
State Assistant Attorneys General Deborah J. Chuang and G. Tracey Letteau could not be reached for comment.
Marilee Marshall, a Pasadena appellate lawyer who took up the case after Miranda missed the deadline, said, "We are disappointed, of course. Apparently [the appeals court is] jumping off from the point [that] he had no right to that advice in the first place. And they're the ones that make the call, I guess."
David Houston
david_houston@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com