Turner v. Baker, No. 17-72044 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit denied as unnecessary petitioner's application to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. Petitioner argued that his petition was not second or successive, but rather a first petition challenging a new judgment that added credit for the time he served before sentencing.
The panel held that Gonzalez v. Sherman, 873 F.3d 763, 769 (9th Cir. 2017), which held that, under California law, a state court's amended judgment awarding a defendant credit for time served constituted a new judgment, applied to Nevada law. Therefore, petitioner's habeas petition was the first petition challenging his amended judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel denied as unnecessary Alquandre Turner’s application to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition challenging his Nevada state conviction and sentence, and transferred the petition to the district court with instructions to consider it as a first habeas petition. The panel held that a Nevada state court’s amended judgment awarding a defendant credit for time served constitutes a new judgment, and that Turner’s habeas petition is therefore the first petition challenging his amended judgment, which does not require authorization from this court. The panel wrote that the issue of the timeliness of Turner’s petition is not properly before this court after this court determined, in an application for authorization to file a second or successive petition, that Turner’s petition is a first petition.
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.