FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN P. BAKER, No. 10-16716
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00315-FRZ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CHARLES L. RYAN; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
ARIZONA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 5, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FARRIS, NOONAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
John P. Baker appeals the district court’s denial of his federal habeas corpus
petition as untimely. He argues that he was entitled to statutory or equitable tolling
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). We review this
matter de novo. Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The parties are familiar with the facts. Baker was convicted by a jury for
conspiracy, kidnaping, and child abuse. His conviction was denied review by the
Arizona Supreme Court in 2001. A petition for post-conviction relief resulted in
his resentencing on May 2, 2005. Baker filed several other petitions for post-
conviction relief. Two were timely filed, consolidated, and denied by the Arizona
Court of Appeals. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review of those two
petitions on August 8, 2007. Baker filed a third petition for post-conviction review
on October 3, 2006. The trial and appellate courts denied relief, and the Arizona
Supreme Court denied review on December 17, 2007. Baker filed his fourth
petition on September 11, 2007. The trial and appellate courts denied relief, and
the Arizona Supreme Court denied review on March 10, 2009. He filed his federal
habeas petition on June 3, 2009.
The AEDPA one-year statutory limitation runs from the latest of four events,
including “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A). It is tolled for the “time during which a properly filed application
2
for State post-conviction or other collateral review” is pending. 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(2).
In Baker’s case, AEDPA is tolled by the consolidated first and second
petitions for post conviction relief, which were timely filed. The conclusion of
direct review for those petitions was August 8, 2007. Unless he could avail
himself of other tolling, the deadline for Baker to file his federal habeas petition
was one year later, on August 8, 2008.
Whether the third petition was timely is irrelevant, as it would toll AEDPA
until December, 2008, resulting in an time-barred federal habeas petition. The
timeliness of the federal habeas petition rests on the fourth petition for post-
conviction relief, which, if timely, would toll AEDPA until March 10, 2010.
Baker argues that his fourth petition meets a timeliness exception under
Az.R.Crim.P. 32.1(g), allowing a petition if there is a “significant change in the
law that if determined to apply to defendant’s case would probably overturn the
defendant’s conviction or sentence.” Baker’s petition alleged a significant change
in sentencing law. The state courts disagreed. Upholding the lower court, the
Arizona Court of Appeals added that Baker’s claim was unduly vague and that the
alleged change did not apply to Baker. Because Baker’s fourth petition did not
qualify for the Rule 32.1(g) exception to the conditions to filing in Rule 32.4(a),
3
we conclude that it was untimely under Arizona law. Untimely petitions are not
“properly filed”, so the fourth petition does not toll AEDPA.
Baker further argues that two new Supreme Court cases, Lafler v. Cooper,
132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), announce
newly-recognized constitutional rights that apply retroactively to Baker’s case and
therefore toll AEDPA. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C). But Lafler and Frye do not
recognize new constitutional rights. Buenrostro v. United States, No. 12-71253, 12
Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11, 430 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2012).
Finally, Baker argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling. He does not
present judicially-recognized extraordinary circumstances or new evidence of
actual innocence that would entitle him to equitable tolling. Holland v. Florida,
130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
4