Ibrahn Ben Miranda v. Ray Castro, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the petitioner’s conviction became final ninety (90) days after the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review
• holding that equitable tolling was not warranted where a petitioner relied on incorrect advice of former counsel because petitioner had no right to the assistance of counsel regarding post-conviction relief
• holding that equitable tolling was not warranted where a petitioner relied on incorrect advice of former counsel because petitioner had no right to the assistance of counsel regarding post- conviction relief
• holding that an attorney's incorrect advice regarding the time in which to file a federal habeas petition did not warrant equitable tolling when the petitioner did not have a right to postconviction counsel
• stating that “the threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling 26 [under AEDPA] is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule”
• finding that counsel’s 25 miscalculation and negligence in general do not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to warrant equitable tolling

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).