Burton v. Director

Filing 245

ORDER Re: Certificate of Appealability. Burton's habeas petition presented four claims, all of which the Court rejected. The first two claims alleged that Burton's right under Faretta v. California to represent himself at trial was violate d. The Court GRANTS Burton a certificate of appealability as to those two claims. While the Court found them to fail, the record allows for the possibility that a reasonable jurist might reach a different conclusion. The Court DENIES Burton a cert ificate of appealability, however, as to his claims under Brady and Batson. Those claims are implausible. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/24/2011. (Order electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC WILTON BURTON,

CASE NO. 08CV0325-LAB (POR)
Petitioner,

12

ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

vs.
13
14
15
16

DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION,
Respondent.

17
18
19

The Court denied Burton’s habeas petition on September 30, 2011. Since then,
Burton has filed a notice of appeal and an application for a certificate of appealability.

20

Burton is entitled to a certificate of appealability only if he “has made a substantial

21

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies

22

this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s

23

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are

24

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

25

327 (2003). Burton doesn’t have to show that he should prevail on the merits. “He has

26

already failed in that endeavor.” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000)

27

(citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). At the same time, the Court

28

shouldn’t issue a COA to Burton as a matter of course. He “must prove ‘something more
-1-

08CV0325

1

than the absence of frivolity’ or the existence of mere ‘good faith’ on his or her part.” Miller-

2

El, 537 U.S. at 337–38 (citing Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893).

3

Burton’s habeas petition presented four claims, all of which the Court rejected. The

4

first two claims alleged that Burton’s right under Faretta v. California to represent himself at

5

trial was violated. The Court GRANTS Burton a certificate of appealability as to those two

6

claims. While the Court found them to fail, the record allows for the possibility that a

7

reasonable jurist might reach a different conclusion. The Court DENIES Burton a certificate

8

of appealability, however, as to his claims under Brady and Batson. Those claims are

9

implausible.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 24, 2011

12
13

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

08CV0325