Styers, et al v. Stewart, et al

Filing 177

ORDER on CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY - that Petitioner's 175 Motion for Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate whether, in correcting the constitutional error in his sentence, the state court was obligated to provide Petitioner with a new sentencing proceeding before a jury re 173 Notice of Appeal. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/10/12. (DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

James Lynn Styers,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-98-2244-PHX-JAT
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER ON CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability from the order
denying his motion to enter judgment in this habeas corpus action.
Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal
is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall” either issue a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) or state the reasons why such a certificate should not
issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can be
established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner” or that the
issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).
The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate whether, in correcting the
constitutional error in his sentence, the state court was obligated to provide Petitioner with

1

a new sentencing proceeding before a jury. Therefore, the Court will grant a COA on that

2

issue. For the reasons stated in the Court’s order of July 26, 2012, the Court denies a COA

3

on the other issues requested by Petitioner in his motion.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 175)

6

is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate whether, in

7

correcting the constitutional error in his sentence, the state court was obligated to provide

8

Petitioner with a new sentencing proceeding before a jury.

9

DATED this 10th day of September, 2012.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-