CA9 — memorandum dispositions

Ruiz v. Schriro, No. 05-16564 (CA9, argued) — Ruiz’s second and third petitions for state post-conviction relief were not “properly filed” so as to qualify for statutory tolling of the limitations period.  Although it was unclear the extent to which the determination that the petitions were not “properly filed” allowed the court to review the state court’s determination that they were untimely, it was clear to the court that they were not “properly filed” in accordance with Stewart v. Smith, 46 P.3d 1067 (Ariz. 2002).  Thus Ruiz was not entitled to statutory tolling.  Ruiz argued that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the limitation period because the Arizona courts had appointed the same lawyer for direct appeal and state post-conviction proceedings.  The Ninth Circuit remanded this aspect of the claim for consideration by the district court in the first instance.

Conway v. Runnell, No. 06-56094 (CA9, argued) — Introducing prior-acts evidence against the petitioner at his trial did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict, even assuming that the state court’s rejection of this claim was an unreasonable application of federal law.  Moreover, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction that allowed the jury to use the evidence to prove his identity, because the prosecution’s case was so strong that this failure did not undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome of the trial.