9th Cir.;
15-16967

The court of appeals reversed a district court judgment and remanded. The court held that a state court's filing of an amended judgment of conviction constituted a “new judgment” for purposes of the statute of limitations on the filing of a federal habeas petition, even if the amended judgment merely reinstated the prior convictions.

In 1997, Taniko Smith was convicted in Nevada of murder, attempted murder, and other crimes. The judgment was upheld on appeal, and Smith's state and federal habeas petitions were denied. In 2007, Smith filed his third state habeas petition, arguing that under an intervening Nevada Supreme Court decision, the jury had not been properly instructed on the specific intent required to convict him of murder or attempted murder based on an aiding and abetting theory. The state trial court agreed, overturning and vacating Smith's convictions and sentences for first degree murder and attempted murder. It entered an amended judgment of conviction on August 21, 2007. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the state trial court in 2009, concluding that Smith's petition was untimely and that Smith had not shown good cause to excuse the procedural defect. It remanded to the trial court with instructions to reinstate Smith's murder and attempted murder convictions. On March 14, 2012, the state trial court entered a second amended judgment reinstating the murder and attempted murder convictions and sentences.