Ford v. Gonzalez, No. 11-15430 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Defendant, a California state prisoner, was found guilty of two counts of robbery. The district court subsequently dismissed as untimely three claims in Defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Defendant appealed, arguing that his claims were timely because the prosecutor withheld evidence that a witness for the prosecution at his trial received lenient treatment in her own criminal cases in return for testifying against Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to delayed commencement of the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act because the factual predicate of his claims could have been discovered had he exercised due diligence at his trial; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not exercise reasonable diligence, and no extraordinary circumstance prevented the timely filing of his claims.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.